Skip to main content

tv   U.S. House of Representatives  CSPAN  November 16, 2011 1:00pm-5:00pm EST

1:00 pm
about this issue of the debt and the deficit and we're not going to send the right message. i'm very proud to stand here with these folks today and say, supercommittee, we got your back. we support you, we look forward to working with you on whatever course you decide to take to make sure that we do the right thing for the american people as well as to continue to show that america leads the financial free market and we're going to be there to back you, to make sure that that leadership continues. with that i'll turn to heath shuler. >> with this many people in here, i'll take the podium when i get the opportunity. saxby, thank you. incredible work has been done, the house working group, through multiple leaderships of both democrats and republicans and what the gang of six have been able to work together, and now look at us. we have a substantial amount,
1:01 pm
over 150 members that may not all be here because of the room, but over 150 members in the united states house and senate have come together to say we want to go big. that time is of the essence. we can't kick the can down the road. that has been going on for a decade now. now is the time. and they have the support of these members of congress. this is the true statesmen and women before you. it's not about their elections, it's not about what's on the horizon politically for themselves, this is about the american people. and this is about the next generation. we can't turn our back on the next generation. we must lead this country -- leave this country better than we found it. and the way that's going to be done is through working together in a bipartisan way. i'll turn it over to mark. >> set a record and be the briefest of anybody because i
1:02 pm
want to make sure all these other colleagues get a chance. failure can't be an option. the whole rest of the world is watching. the notion of what's happening in europe and their lack of stepping up, we can't have the repeat of that here. in this country. and whether we like it or not, this debt and deficit debate has become an effective -- in effect a proxy for whether our democratic institutions are up to the job in the 21st century. and i think you're seeing behind us here a growing bipartisan group in both the house and senate that want to get the job done. so let's make sure we hear from some other folks, ok? >> the world is watching. we know that the economic future of our country and the world rests on decisions that will be made in the next few days. this is a circumstance that requires us to work together.
1:03 pm
we know it's tough but we know it's been done. the group of six did it, simpson-bowles did it, this group can do it. and they need to know if they are bold, if they are brave, if they go big, we will stand with them and the american people will stand with them. >> you've heard the message, but there's really three critical points to make sure. -- make sheer. we are here to support the supercommittee, to make sure the supercommittee knows we have their back and we will come together on a bipartisan basis to help america find a solution. number two, the $4 trillion figure, the effort to go big, is not just an arbitrary number, it's what we've all learned, it's what we must do as a minimum to achieve the kind of fiscal reform in america that will help keep us the greatest nation and the greatest economy in the world. .
1:04 pm
>> we'll break away from this. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> house is gaveling back in. the bill that would allow gun owners with proper permits to carry firearms across state lines. live house coverage now here on c-span. gentleman from michigan rise? >> madam speaker, i move the house suspend the rules and concur in the designate amendment to h.r. 674. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 674, an act to amend the internal revenue code of 1986 to repeal the imposition of 3% withholding on certain payments made to vendors by government entities, to modify the calculation of modified adjusted gross income for purposes of determining eligibility for certain health care-related programs, and for other purposes. senate amendment. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, and the gentleman from
1:05 pm
michigan, mr. levin, each will control 20 minutes. and the chair now recognizes the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp. mr. camp: thank you, madam speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. camp: i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. camp: i come to the floor today in support of permanently repealing the onerous job-killing 3% withholding law. during house action last month, this legislation garnered more than 400 votes for repeal and passed, as amended, with an overwhelming 95 votes in the senate last week. the legislation which has been championed by ways and means health subcommittee chairman, wally herger, and our democrat colleague, earl blumenauer, is supported by president obama, and makes clear that when we work together we can find bipartisan solutions to the laws and regulations that stifle job creation. this legislation does just that and frees up valuable resources
1:06 pm
businesses can use for hiring. in addition to the provisions in the house-passed 3% withholding bill, the senate amendment contains a variety of veterans-related provisions, a group of americans clearly deserving our support. finally, the senate amendment retains another provision passed by this house with bipartisan support and authored by one of the newest members of the ways and means committee, representative diane black. mrs. black's legislation modifies the income definition for determining eligibility for exchanged subsidies, medicaid and the children's health insurance program. conforming the definition of income in the democrats' health care law to the standard used by other federal low-income programs such as food stamps and public housing. in doing so taxpayers save $13 billion and medicaid funds will not be diverted away from serving america's lowest income families. madam speaker, today we can take the final step and send
1:07 pm
this deficit reducing and job creating legislation to the president's desk. i urge my colleagues to vote yes on the senate amendment to h.r. 674 and i look forward to seeing the president sign this bill into law, and i ask unanimous consent the gentleman from california, mr. herger, control the balance of the time. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, and the gentleman reserves his time. the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, is recognized. mr. levin: madam speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. levin: madam speaker, i believe this bill will pass with overwhelming support. nearly everyone agrees that the 3% withholding provision should be repealed. it was a misguided approach when it was enacted by the last republican congress. and it is misguided now. that is why we tried to repeal it earlier and ultimately delayed its implementation. its repeal, however, should not
1:08 pm
be claimed as a significant jobs bill. as economist mark zandi has quoted, i don't think it's meaningful in terms of jobs. i think it's more trying to clean up something that needs cleaning up, end of quote. the veteran provision is a real jobs bill. they are a useful start in helping those who have loyally served our nation find work. and i would hope that all of us support them, including the tax credits to encourage businesses to hire veterans. most on our side support these provisions and they were included in the president's jobs proposal. but no one should consider these modest steps as a substitute for action on the president's comprehensive jobs
1:09 pm
plan which republicans have so far blocked. the president's job plan includes a payroll tax cut that would save the average family $ 1,500 a year. payroll tax cuts for hiring. and incentives to invest. it includes an infrastructure bank and $75 billion to build roads and schools. that's a job agenda that could help many of the 14 million americans who are still looking for work. picking out two of the smaller pieces of that agenda and saying you've acted on the president's jobs bill is really disingenuous. the 3% withholding repeal and the veterans provisions are things we should do, but we must do much more. millions are counting us to do
1:10 pm
more. so passage of this bill today represents a challenge to the majority in this house. end your blockade of comprehensive jobs legislation as proposed by the president of the united states. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. herger: madam speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. herger: i rise in strong support of h.r. 674. members of this house are well aware of why the 3% withholding tax must be repealed. it threatens the cash flow of thousands of small businesses that sell goods and services to the government agencies and impose additional costs on cash-strapped state and local governments. today i want to talk about the big picture and why this is so
1:11 pm
important for job creation. americans are hurting. nearly 14 million are unable to find work and millions more are stuck in part-time jobs even though they would like to work more. we are now well into the fourth year of this downturn and many americans are increasingly discouraged about the long-term future of our economy. america's job creators are hurting too. today thousands of small business owners will sit down, look over their books and try to discern what the future holds. they are uncertain about whether there will be sufficient demand for their goods and services. they are uncertain about how europe's fiscal crisis will affect our economy and whether we would do what is needed to address our own debt crisis before it's too late.
1:12 pm
and they're uncertain about the direction of government policy, whether washington will continue to hand down new taxes and regulations that stifle economic growth. the 3% withholding tax is an example of the kind of government policies that discourage job creation. when small business owners are evaluating whether their investment will allow them to make a living, it matters if a new tax is going to cut off their cash flow in just over a year. repealing this tax is one important step. it sends a message to america's job creators that jobs are our number one priority and that congress is committed to undoing policies that stand in the way of restoring prosperity. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves.
1:13 pm
the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i now yield two minutes to the distinguished member of our committee, the gentleman from georgia, mr. lewis. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for two minutes. mr. lewis: madam speaker, i want to thank mr. levin for yielding. madam speaker, the most important task we face today is helping americans get back to work. people stop me all over metro atlanta and tell me how long they've been looking for work, how many applications they have filled out, how many resumes they have sent. and with the unemployment for veterans in iraq and afghanistan over 10%, this is a good start. it is a necessary start. these are people who want to work, who need to work. they don't want a handout. they want a job. these men and women put on that
1:14 pm
uniform to serve and protect our country. we can and must do more to honor their service. it is simply the right and good thing to do. now, i must say, madam speaker, that i strongly object to the republican effort to stain a bipartisan bill with a partisan poison pill, making it more difficult for america's seniors to get private health insurance and medicaid. it is not right, it is n fair and it is not just. and with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california. mr. herger: madam speaker, i yield three minutes to the gentlewoman from tennessee, mrs. black, who's been instrumental working on this legislation and coming up for savings that we can do to see that it is paid for. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from tennessee is
1:15 pm
recognized for three minutes. mrs. black: thank you, chairman herger. madam speaker, i'd like to begin by saying i am extremely proud that my legislation is part of this very worthy bipartisan jobs package. congress can and should work together to find common ground and forward solution-based legislation like what we are considering right here. today, the house will pass a package that not only creates more certainty for small business, encourages hiring of our nation's veterans, but is also paid for thanks to my legislation that repeals a costly glitch in the health care law. . this legislation will save billions of dollars. i've spoken on the floor of the house previously about my cost-saving legislation that is now part of this package. when the affordable care act was passed, few realized that this legislation contained a loophole that would allow middle class
1:16 pm
americans to receive medicaid benefits. the new income formula that determines eligibility for government subsidized health insurance,ed modified adjusted gross income or magi, deviated from other federal assistance programs failing to include social security benefits as income. under the health care law, a married couple with an income, an annual income of over $60,000 can could qualify to receive medicaid benefits. let me put it in more stark terms. changing the income formula could result in individuals whose incomes are up to 400% of the poverty level receiving medicaid. this is unacceptable. i very strongly believe that it is our duty to ensure that the very scarce medicaid resources are there for those in most need. again, let me state that the affordable care act income formula for medicaid, chip and exchange subsidies deviated from the eligibility requirements for
1:17 pm
other federal assistance programs. supplemental social security income, supplemental nutrition programs known as food stamps, temporary assistance for needy families, and public housing all include the entire social security benefit as income. my legislation, now a part of this package, adds social security benefits back into the equation. realigning medicaid with the other programs and stopping these improper payments before they occur. closing the loophole in medicaid will save $13 billion over 10 years according to the congressional budget office. and by adding my legislation to this package that includes the 3% withholding repeal and the veterans tax deductions, this package will save vital tax dollars. madam speaker, i'd like to take a moment to praise other sections of this bill and on the heels of veterans day i cannot think of a better time for congress to step forward and help our veterans get to work.
1:18 pm
as a wife, mother and daughter, i know how important it is that we support those brave men and women who fought for our country. mr. herger: i yield an additional minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. black: thank you. i hope that this bipartisan, bicameral veterans legislation is just the beginning of more veterans bills getting passed by congress. veterans who return home to us and seek work should be able to find it. with our economic recovery sluggish at best, my colleague, mr. herger, 3% withholding repeal will go a long way to create more certainty for small business, taxes -- paxing business at 3% -- taxing business at 3% is something we cannot afford. i look forward to this package being signed into law by the president as soon as possible. we should not have to wait for these commonsense, bipartisan solutions to go into effect. thank you, madam speaker, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: it's now my real pleasure to yield two minutes to
1:19 pm
a gentleman who has worked so hard on veterans issues, the gentleman from california, mr. filner. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for two minutes. mr. filner: thank you, mr. levin, and i appreciate the time and thank you, mr. lerger, for bringing us this bill -- herger, for bringing thus bill. i rise in support of h.r. 674. you know, every day i get phone cause and letters from veterans -- calls from veterans telling me how valuable their service was. they are confused as to why potential employers don't value their time and service and why they get rejection letters for jobs they are qualified to perform. these veterans are highly skilled individuals who are ready to make an immediate impact to any job. veterans bring real world experience to any company and unfortunately employers fail to see this value. on august of this year, the president proposed a comprehensive plan to decrease the veteran unemployment rate. part of his plan includes a tax credit from employers and i'm happy to see that senator murray
1:20 pm
included this in h.r. 674. it would provide a tax credit for firms that hire certain unemployed veterans and these tax credits are a win for the veterans and a win for the companies. the credits will incentivize struggling businesses that need to increase their work force to hire veterans while getting a tax deduction. the bill also provides veterans with training, mentoring and placement services and allows for the appointment of honorably discharged veterans to civil service. i'm happy to see h.r. 674 move forward because it will provide individualized assessments for service members in the transitional assistance program. increase access to apresent -- apprenticeship programs, provide authority to the v.a. to provide services to service members with severe injuries and many other positive programs that will help veterans. the president's message was clear, we must fight for our service members an veterans by enacting legislation that will help veterans get jobs. i hope that all of my colleagues will join me in supporting h.r.
1:21 pm
674 and i would yield back, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california. mr. herger: madam speaker, i yield five minutes to the gentleman from florida, there miller, the chairman of the veterans affairs committee -- of the veteran affairs committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized for five minutes. mr. miller: thank you, madam speaker. i thank the gentleman for yielding. i do stand today in strongest possible support of the senate amendment to h.r. 674 which includes the provision of the bipartisan and bicameral vow to hire heroes act, 2011. this bill contains many provisions of h.r. 2433, the veterans opportunity to work act, or the v.o.w. act, which was introduced in july and passed the house by an overwhelming majority just last month. the v.o.w. act honors the 1%, the 1% of americans who as veterans have signed a blank check in the amount of up to and including their lives and
1:22 pm
payable to the other 99% of americans. in return for that investment, too many of them, veterans of every working age, generation, are finding themselves unemployed or seriously underemployed due to the current economic downturn. unfortunately today's economy has eliminated millions of jobs which many will unfortunately never return. regardless of the reason, nearly one million veterans need help in acquiring the skills needed for today's job market. that is what the v.o. -- vow to hire heroes act will do. there are millions of jobs going unfilled right now because employers can't find workers with the right skills. i'm proud that a major provision of the vow to hire heroes act will give nearly 100,000 veterans a chance to gain the new skills that are in demand for today's jobs. and these jobs are not just in high-tech fields.
1:23 pm
many are in the trades, many are in fields that cannot be moved overseas like transportation. and this bill helps provide the training needed to complete and compete for these types of jobs without adding new programs. in fact, the too two major provisions of this bill essentially recycle two existing well-regarded education and training programs, the montgomery g.i. bill, and the location and rehabilitation and employment program. that will make use of existing staff and current regulations. as i said, this act takes a comprehensive approach. for those just leaving the service this bill would vastly improve the transition assistance program or t.a.p. as it's known, by adding personal skills, assessment and improved skills crosswalks into civilian occupations. the bill would also begin the process of working with the states to help standardize occupational licensing and
1:24 pm
credentialing, a major bottleneck that often wastes millions of dollars spent on our military training. for the disabled veterans who have completed v.a.'s rehab and employment program and who have exhausted their unemployment benefits, the bill would offer up to an additional year of vocational rehabilitation. madam speaker, i want to thank the chair of the senate committee on veterans affairs, senator patty murray, for her insight in including the vocational rehabilitation benefits as part of the compromise bill. i have two final points. the first is this bill is paid for, both mandatory and discretionary. we have worked with the veterans services organizations in order to find the pay-for provisions and they understand the urgentsy to help veterans become employed and i thank them for their support of this legislation. and secondly, madam speaker, i'd like to thank chairman camp. i know his plate is full right now and i thank him most sincerely for helping bring this to the floor. and with that i yield back.
1:25 pm
the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i now yield two minutes to the very distinguished member of our committee and a co-sponsor of the amendment that we now add to the original bill, mr. blumenauer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oregon is recognized for two minutes. mr. blumenauer: thank you, madam speaker. thank you, mr. levin. it's a pleasure to be on the floor with my partner on this legislation, mr. herger, being able to see it finally brought to fruition and actually made a little better, with the inclusion of these important provisions for our veterans. i am hopeful that we will act with dispatch and approval it unanimously. but i hope we can also focus on what this chapter represents. it was something in terms of working with mr. herger, moving this through congress, that it seems to me that there are three elements that we ought to focus on going forward. first and foremost, that same spirit that has resulted in being able to fix and improve
1:26 pm
this legislation ought to be focused on how we rebuild and renew america. because so many of the businesses and government that are going to be pounded with this 3% withholding are struggling to deal with challenges that they face. there are hundreds of thousands of veterans that could potentially be at work, rebuilding and renewing america. we are in a precarious position in terms of our competitiveness internationally, with problems of congestion, pollution. i am hopeful that this same spirit focused here can be focused on this major effort to rebuild and renew america, that can help revitalize the economy while it improves our communities. second, we need to take a hard look at flaws in how we score legislation. this piece of legislation that we were looking at and part of the challenge was to have some sort of offset because it was
1:27 pm
going to, quote, cost government money. as a practical matter that is not the case. because the c.b.o. rules never take into account how much it would cost to implement it. and as a result of the hearings with mr. herger, with small business, with the whole range, i am absolutely confident that it would have cost the federal government far more to implement it than it ever would have collected. we need to make sure going forward we don't have these aberrations that cost -- mr. levin: i yield the gentleman an additional minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. blumenauer: that cause us to go through these gyrations for something that on its face really is not going to yield the economic results. and, finally, i hope we can work together in this same sort of spirit, evidenced working with mr. herger, chairman camp, ranking member levin, to deal with the broader picture of how we're going to deal with
1:28 pm
long-term problems of our budget deficit and our flawed revenue system. we can reform and balance our system, give a balanced program to deal with both, that reforms and raises revenues, that changes how we do business. i am convinced that this is within the capacity of those of us in congress and today's positive vote on this legislation is a little indication of how it can be done. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california. mr. herger: madam speaker, i yield one bhin to -- minute to the gentleman from indiana, mr. stutzman, the chairman of the veteran affairs subcommittee on economic opportunity. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from indiana is recognized for one minute. mr. stutzman: thank you, madam speaker. i thank the chairman for yielding. thank you, madam speaker. jobs for america's veterans has become a popular topic over the past few weeks. the vow to hire heroes act is a vital first step in meeting our responsibilities to that 1% of
1:29 pm
americans mentioned by v.a. committee chairman miller in his remarks. for those who are in the middle of their civilian working life, gaining new skills is often problematic due to a lack of resources to fund education and training. while recently discharged veterans have the post-9/11 g.i. bill's generous resources to acquire the skills now in demand, therefore i believe the most important provision in the vow to hire heroes act offers 99,000 unemployed veterans between the ages of 35 and 60 the resources to acquire those new skills. finally, madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to insert the joint explanatory statement for the vow to hire heroes act of 2011 into the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. stutzman: and to my colleagues, the veterans provisions in this bill are worthy of your support and i urge you to join me in voting yes on the vow to hire heroes act and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i now yield two minutes to the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. altmire.
1:30 pm
the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for two minutes. mr. altmire: madam speaker, i spoke in favor of repealing the 3% withholding provision when it passed the house just last month. and i'm pleased the senate has not only passed it but added important provisions to help our brave men and women in uniform find work when they return home. the amended bill provides retraining assistance to unemployed veterans as well as tax credits to businesses that hire unemployed veterans, a segment of our population that has been especially hard hit by our sluggish economy. an estimated 12% of veterans who have served since the attacks of september 11 are unemployed. this is far above the national average and not what our nation's heroes deserve. . our service members have gone above and beyond our country and this legislation is one way to help them succeed here at home. i strongly support this legislation and urge my colleagues to vote in favor and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the
1:31 pm
gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california. mr. herger: madam speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from south carolina, mr. mulvaney, the chairman of the small business subcommittee on contracting and work force. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from south carolina is recognized for two minutes. mr. mulvaney: madam speaker, thank you. last week i came to this floor and stood in the well and called upon the senate to do something which was to take up this bill. this bill that had passed out of our subcommittee with tremendous bipartisan support, passed off of this house with bipartisan support. something that went practically unnoticed nationwide, especially in the media. i asked the senate to take this bill up because it was not only that the house supported on in a bipartisan basis but something that was part of the president's jobs bill as well. so in the name of doing the right thing, i thought i'd come today and thank the senate for doing that. and while they're at it, because they might want to take the opportunity to take up the other job bills that we have
1:32 pm
sent them over the course of the last several months, they have done the right thing here. they have taken a bill that will help people go back to work. and we're seeing what's happening here today as people try to figure out ways to give folks exactly that opportunity. that same possibility exists another 19 times over in the senate. the senate has done the right thing with this bill. they have passed. they sent it back to us. it's going to become law now. i ask the senate to take up at least -- take up the 19 bills we have sent them over and so we have another opportunity to do this again before the end of the year. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i yield myself 15 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. levin: the problem is that the 19 bills weren't real jobs bills. and so now what the senate has sent us back is an addition that is a real jobs bill, though not comprehensive. i now yield two minutes to the gentlelady from new york, mrs.
1:33 pm
maloney. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york is recognized for two minutes. mrs. maloney: i thank the gentleman for his leadership, not only on the committee but in so many ways in this congress and for yielding me time. madam speaker, i rise in strong support of h.r. 674 and the president's veterans jobs bill. the 3% withholding repeal is very important on its own. this was an important bill that would help small business contractors that would have experienced significant cash flow problems for day-to-day operations had the withholding tax gone into effect. it also provides important tax credits to encourage more employers to hire our veterans who are out of work. well over 12% of our returning veterans are out of work. this bill provides additional education and job training for veterans to gain additional skills, to be successful and increasingly competitive job market. and it takes important steps to
1:34 pm
help ease the transition between military service and the civilian work force. i am pleased that we are working together to repeal this tax burden and help our veterans in a comprehensive way during these tough economic times. i am pleased that this portion of the president's jobs bill is being enacted today. i thank all that are supporting it and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from california. mr. herger: madam speaker, i might request that we don't have -- i would be the closing speaker. mr. levin: we have one more speaker. mr. herger: ok. i yield -- i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i now with pleasure yield two minutes to the gentleman from georgia, mr. bishop. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for two minutes. mr. bishop: i thank the distinguished gentleman for yielding. madam speaker, i request permission to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. bishop: madam speaker, i'd like to thank the democrat and republican leadership in both
1:35 pm
the house and the senate for their timely consideration of the vow to hire heroes act of 2011. s a the house sponsoring of the hiring act, i'd like to thank the senate and house veterans' affairs committee as well as the chair and ranking members of the house ways and means committee. just as this nation has the responsibility not to leave our soldiers behind on the battlefields, we also have an obligation not to forget our veterans when they return home. last month the unemployment rate for veterans who fought in iraq and afghanistan was 12%. the youngest veterans aged 18 to 24 had a 30% unemployment rate in october. among african-american veterans aged 18 to 24, the jobless rate is a striking 48%. these numbers, madam speaker, are unacceptable. h.r. 674 allows us to honor our
1:36 pm
veterans by ensuring that they have the resources and tools they need to have suitable and sustainable employment. i ask my colleagues to support h.r. 674 and to provide our nation's veterans with the employment opportunities they need and they so rightly deserve. thank you, madam speaker. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california. continues to reserve. the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i yield myself the balance of the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. levin: it can be stated very briefly, the unemployment rate for veterans is beyond acceptance and these bills hopefully will help. we need to pass more comprehensive legislation so that everybody has a chance at a job.
1:37 pm
and for those who are unemployed, looking for work, we need to act so that by next february two million people will not be left without unemployment insurance. but, again, these provisions were added by the senate that were part of the president's bill, will help to address something that is unacceptable, unsatisfactory rate of unemployment rate and rere-employment rate for people who have served our country so loyally and so well. so i support this bill and urge its passage. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan yields back. the gentleman from california. mr. herger: madam speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. herger: first, i'd like to request unanimous consent to enter two letters of support into the record, one from the
1:38 pm
government withholding relief coalition, the other from the u.s. chamber of commerce. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. herger: madam speaker, today we have an opportunity to encourage job creation by repealing a tax thatess looming over small businesses and also to improve economic opportunities for the men and women who have risked their life and limb to serve our country in the armed forces. i urge a strong bipartisan vote for this legislation, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is will the house suspend the rules and concur in the senate amendment to h.r. 674, and those in favor will signify by saying aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the senate amendment is agreed to and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. mr. herger: madam speaker, i request the yeas and nays.
1:39 pm
the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. and all those in favor of taking this vote by the will rise and remain standing until counted yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20 and the chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be postponed.
1:40 pm
1:41 pm
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on h.r. 8 2. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. pursuant to house resolution 463 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of h.r. 822. the chair appoint the gentlewoman from michigan, mrs. miller, to preside over the committee of the whole. the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the consideration of h.r. 822 which
1:42 pm
the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill to amend title 18, united states code, to provide a national standard in accordance with which nonresidents of a state may carry concealed firearms in the state. the chair: pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as read the first time. the gentleman from texas, mr. smith, and the gentleman from michigan, mr. conyers, each will control 30 minutes, and the chair now recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: madam chair woman, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. smith: h.r. 822, the national right-to-carry reciprocity act of 2011, was introduced by mr. stearns of florida and mr. shuler of north carolina and is co-sponsored by 235 members of congress on both sides of the aisle. this landmark legislation recognizes the importance of the second amendment and makes it easier for individuals with concealed-carry permits to travel to other states. 49 states now allow concealed-carry permits and 40
1:43 pm
of these states extend some degree of reciprocity to permit holders from other states. this apply the states' reciprocal agreements nationwide. this allows people to conceal firearms to recognize other states' valid concealed permits much like other states recognize drivers' licenses issued by other states. it determines eligibility requirements for their own residents. state, local and federal laws and regulations regarding how, when and where a concealed firearm can be carried that apply to a resident will apply equally to a nonresident. for example, many states bar individuals from carrying firearms in a bar, at a sporting event or in a state park. under this legislation, all of these restrictions will apply to nonresidents as well. h.r. 822 also addresses concerns regarding the ability of law enforcement agencies to
1:44 pm
confirm the validity of an out-of-state concealed-carry permit. the bill requires a person to show both a valid governmental issued identification document such as a license or passport and a valid concealed-carry license or permit. state law enforcement agencies can verify the validity of an out-of-state concealed permits through the system. it is available to law enforcement officials in all 50 states, 24 hours a day, seven days a week. data from the f.b.i.'s annual uniform crime report shows that right-to-carry states or those who widely allow concealed carry have 22% lower crime rates, 30% lower murder rates, 30% lower robbery rates and 12% lower aggravated assault rates as compared to the rest of the country. opponents of this bill have noted that some states would be
1:45 pm
required to recognize cleary permits from different states with different eligibility. however, 40 states already grant reciprocity from other states including states with different eligibility requirements. the states would not do this if different eligibility requirements were a concern. the second amendment is a fundamental right to bear arms that should not be constrained by state boundary lines. opposition to this legislation comes from those who believe that cleary permit holders often commit violent crimes which is demonstrably false or those who want to restrict the light of law-abiding citizens the right to bear arms. this legislation enhances the public safety and protects the right to bear arms under the second amendment. so i urge my colleagues to support h.r. 822 and, madam chair woman, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan.
1:46 pm
mr. conyers: madam speaker, i yield myself as much time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman's recognized. mr. conyers: members of the house, the measure that we have under consideration today is a very curious one in that there is some misunderstanding of what the constitutional right to carry loaded, hidden guns in public is really all about. and i would begin our discussion to point out that under the proposal before us, a concealed
1:47 pm
firearm permit issued by any state would be valid in every state that allows a concealed carry provision. and so, for example, a visitor to my home state of michigan would be allowed to carry a loaded, hidden weapon in public even if he has not met the minimum requirements to do so mandated by our state law. different states have enacted different requirements for carrying concealed weapons within their borders. and although federal law prohibits individuals with federal convictions from possessing a weapon, 38 of our
1:48 pm
states have chosen to deny concealed carry licenses to individuals with convictions for certain misdemeanor offenses. and so i would like to start our discussion off with the fact that there are so many members of law enforcement, so many members of the government, so many members of our editorials, please consider with me, my colleagues in the house, that every major law enforcement
1:49 pm
organization in the united states of america opposes the measure that is on the floor today, h.r. 822. every single organization, the international association of chiefs of police, the major cities chiefs association which includes the 56 largest cities in the united states of america, the police foundation, the national la tinow peace officers association, the national organization of black law enforcement executives.
1:50 pm
we have letters from 600 mayors of the cities in the united states. the national network to end domestic violence have sent us letters, the editorials in "the new york times", "the washington post," the "st. petersburg times" have all submitted letters and so i conclusion my opening remarks by observing that there is no constitutional right to carry loaded, hidden guns in public. and one of the things i hope we
1:51 pm
will be able to persuade you on is that the supreme court case of 2008 entitled district of columbia vs. heller is the case that the majority of the court ruled and justice scalia wrote this decision, that while the second amendment protects the right of law-abiding citizens to use arms in defense of their oklahoma -- defense of their home, but that it bans on carrying in public were presumpively lawful. it wept on to say -- it went on to say that the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful
1:52 pm
under the second amendment, that the prohibitions were lawful and justice scalia's majority decision in that landmark case rendered three years ago stated the second amendment is not unlimited and not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever or for whatever purpose. i cite the supreme court decision 1282783 of 2008, the district of columbia vs. heller. and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from michigan reserves the balance of
1:53 pm
his time. the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: madam chairwoman, i yield one minute to the gentleman from ohio, mr. chabet, who is a senior member of the judiciary committee. mr. chabot: i thank the chairman for yielding. mr. speaker, the second amendment to the united states constitution states, and i quote, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, unquote. in this modern age, when it's very common for people to travel to work or for pleasure, it's really become routine. the national right to carry act is a commonsense solution to adapt to today's needs. this legislation announced -- and it allows people with valid state-issued state concealed arm permits or licenses to carry a concealed firearm in any other state that has essentially the same laws. to be clear, this legislation does not create a national licensing scheme or agency, it does not supersede the laws for firearms use in any other state. the right of self-defense is a
1:54 pm
fundamental one and has been recognized in law for centuries. the second amendment dictates that the appropriate way to fight crime is to target criminals, not law-abiding gun owners. today we have an opportunity to clearly recognize the right to bear arms for our citizens and to allow law-abiding citizens to exercise freedom without restrictive barriers. let's take that opportunity today. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: thank you, madam speaker. i'm pleased to recognize the former chair of the constitution subcommittee of the house judiciary committee, jerry nadler of new york, for as much time as he may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. nadler: thank you, mr. speaker. madam speaker, i'm sorry. madam speaker i rise in strong opposition to h.r. 822.
1:55 pm
what the brady campaign correctly calls the packing heat on your street bill. mr. speaker, america's in dire economic straights. millions of people are out -- straits. millions of people are out of work, people are clam bering for congress to pass legislation to grow the economy and help create jobs. so what does the house of representatives do? this august body is considering gun legislation. the disconnect between the republican house majority and the american people is beyond belief. it's no wonder that the congress approval rating is 13%. not only are we wasting our time on this issue, but what the bill does should scare every american. this bill as amended by the judiciary committee would let a person with a concealed carry permit issued by one state take his or her weapon to any other state of which they are not a resident, regardless of the laws of that other state. state laws on both gun possession and concealed carry would be overridden. this bill takes away the right of the citizens of each state to set their own gun control policy. for republican house majority that supposedly believes in
1:56 pm
states rights this bill is shocking. so, for example, some states require firearms training, will require that people be 21 years old to have a concealed carry permit, also trulies would be tossed aside by this new federal mandate. i tried to protect states by filing an amendment with the rules committee that would have provided an exception to the bill, that lets states enforce laws against persons convicted of sex offenses against minors from having concealed weapons. that amendment was not made in order. i guess it was more important to satisfy the gun lobby than it is to make sure our kids are protected from violent predators. to the extent states want to allow their citizens to enter into other states with concealed weapons, they can do so by entering into reciprocity agreements and many states have done so. but which would wes for those who have not? why would we force them to accept the concealed carry permit of every other state? because any permit would suffice this bill would create a race to
1:57 pm
the bottom. with whatever state is the most permissive rules setting policy. you wouldn't even have to be a resident in some states. this lowest common denominator approach would only lead to more people carrying hidden weapons packing heat on your street. knowing there are more concealed handguns all around does not make me feel safer. lastly the i want to address the constitutional argument. in heller the supreme court held there's a second amendment right for persons to bear arms. nowhere did the court say, however, that there was an unlimited national right to carry a concealed handgun. in fact, justice scalia recognized the legality of reasonable limits on the second amendment. i can't imagine a more reasonable restriction for states to impose than those which govern who can carry a concealed firearm in their own states. i ask that members reject this deeply flawed and dangerous bill and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: madam chairwoman, i now yield three minutes to the gentleman from arizona, mr. franks, who is the chairman of the constitution subcommittee.
1:58 pm
the chair: the gentleman from arizona is recognized for three minutes. mr. franks: i thank the chairman and, madam chair, h.r. 822 initially introduced by mr. stearns of florida and mr. shuler of north carolina and supported by more than half of my colleagues in the house of representatives would allow people with a valid permit or license to carry a concealed handgun in any other state that permits concealed carry. this is a policy akin to allowing licensed drivers from one state to drive their car in another state so long as they obey the local laws. madam chair, clearly the constitutional right to defend oneself from one's family shouldn't be limited to when you are at home. criminal have always preferred unarmed victims. conversely, law-abiding citizens cameble of defending themselves
1:59 pm
and their fellow citizens safe innocent lives. to give one of countless examples, in 2007, a man in colorado wrote online, quote, all i want to do is kill and injury as many christians as i can, closed quote. he then went on a shooting rampage, first killing two young students at a missionary training center outside denver and then at a gathering of over 7,000 people in and around a church, with a rifle and a backpack full of ammunition, murray entered the church and opened fire, killing two sisters. murray was ultimately stopped and killed by a church member and a voluntary security guard who once worked in law enforcement and who had a concealed carry permit. apart from this armed hero's actions, madam speaker, many more innocent citizens would have died that day. h.r. 822 includes a number of provisions intended to retain the states' ability to regulate firearms use in their own states and increase public safety. nothing in the bill effects a state's ability to set the eligibility requirements for its
2:00 pm
own residents, nor does it effect any state laws or regulations regarding how, when or whether where concealed firearms can be carried. it also requires people who want to take advantage of the federal grant of reciprocity to be properly permitted or licensed by a state to carry a concealed weapon. and to be able to produce both the permit or license at a government-issued identification document. to reiterate chairman smith's comments, studies have shown that concealed carry laws are very good public policy for our country, madam chair. the n.r.a. has estimated based on f.b.i. crime report data that right-to-carry laws which widely allow concealed carry have 22% lower violent crime rates, 30% lower murder rates and 46% lower robbery rates than states that prohibit or greatly restrict concealed carry. h.r. 822 will help further this trend.
2:01 pm
i ask my colleagues to help support this bill and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from michigan. 2k -- mr. conyers: i yield to my colleague for one minute. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> i thank the gentleman. mr. chairman, for all the talk of states' rights, h.r. 822 obliterates the states to pass their own gun rules and protect their citizens. in the state of florida, we require those who seek such concealed permits to prove basic competency, to protect those who were convicted of a felony. h.r. 822 denies floridians the right to protect their own families and set their own standards. mr. deutch: if florida would
2:02 pm
want laws as laxed as those in utah, they would adopt their own. i think that they have you had have a dabe. -- database. with a database opened 24 hours a day with people holding concealed-carry permits, florida would be able to protect their citizens. mr. smith: i yield three minutes to mr. stearns who is the writer, author, creator of this legislation. make that five minutes. the chair: the gentleman from florida is recognized for five minutes. mr. stearns: i'd say to my colleague i'm from florida. and so i'm supporting this bill. in fact, i'm the proud sponsor of this bill, ladies and gentlemen. i have sponsored this legislation since the 105th
2:03 pm
congress. that was almost 14 years ago. because i believe it's long overdue that we take action to enhance the fundamental right of self-defense for all law-abiding citizens of this country. i want to thank mr. trent franks of arizona who for his hard work in pushing this through the subcommittee and full committee and chairman lamar smith for his leadership too. my colleagues, the simple right to defend your loved ones from criminals is fundamental. and it's not extinguished when you simply cross a state border. this bill recognizes this important fact by establishing the interstate recognition of concealed-carry permits in much the same way drivers' license are recognized. now, under this legislation, lawfully issued permits will be recognized in all states that also issue carry permits.
2:04 pm
there are now 49 states that issue these permits. most of these states also recognize permits issued from at least some other states. while some states recognize all valid permits issued by any state. but herein simply lies the problem. the nonuniformity of the laws regarding reciprocity makes it difficult for law-abiding permit holders to know for sure if they are obeying the law as they travel from state to state. while preserving the power of the states to set the rules on where concealed firearms can be carried, this bill will establish recognition in the 49 permit-issuing states. so this legislation will simply make it easier for law-abiding permit holders to know that they are simply in compliance with the law when they carry a
2:05 pm
firearm as they travel this wonderful country. drivers would have to stop at the state line to determine whether their license was valid before proceeding. each state would recognize some licenses but of course not all of them. some states would insist that others had precisely the same requirements for issues of a license before operating reciprocity. and the status of such reciprocity would be constantly changing literally day-to-day. so that is the reality of the current reciprocity agreements anding on the congress can remedy this -- and only the congress can remedy this interstate muddle. we are proud to be citizens of a nation who need not present papers to cross internal boundaries. but the holders of carry permits must indeed today worry whether their permits are valid before they can safely venture
2:06 pm
out of their home state while exercising a fundamental right. our system of federalism beckons this body to remedy this disparity and due process an equal treatment under the law. so, mr. chairman, over the past 27 years, 17 states have passed right-to-carry laws and each of these states opponents of firearm ownership have made dire protections of mayhem in the streets if we simply dare to allow law-abiding citizens to carry a firearm for their own self-defense. but in each case these predictions were proven to be completely false. in fact, during that period violent crime has dropped 51% to a 46-year low. 1991 to 2011, and these are according to the f.b.i. uniform crime reports. statistics don't lie in this case.
2:07 pm
they're actually showing violent crime has dropped, and this is one of the reasons. mr. chairman, this legislation will not strip states of the ability to prohibit dangerous persons from carrying a firearm. federal law already prohibits a convicted felon or someone shown to be a danger from the mere possession of a gun and the carry regulations set up in each state will apply to all permitholders, both residents and nonresidents. this bill does not set up a federal carry permit system or establish any federal regulations of concealed-carry permits. that power remains with the states. additionally, this legislation does not include any new federal gun laws nor does it call for additional federal regulation of gun ownership. in fact, it does not allow for new federal regulation for it amends the part of the gun control act that allows only
2:08 pm
such regulation as are necessary. additional one minute. mr. smith: mr. chairman, i'd like to yield the gentleman an additional one minute. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. stearns: it amends the part of the gun control act that allows only such regulation as are necessary, and in this case none, my colleagues. this legislation simply guarantees citizens constitutional rights as a firm by two supreme court cases, d.c. vs. heller and mcdonald vs. chicago which simply ruled the second amendment is an individual right. this bill will allow law-abiding citizens who already have valid carry permits to carry firearms when they travel to protect themselves and to protect their families. these people who have proven themselves to be among the most responsible and safe members of our communities and we should not deprive them of this fundamental right when they simply cross a state border.
2:09 pm
so i urge my colleagues to support this important legislation. it's a long time in coming. i'm pleased it's on the floor and i look forward to its passage. thank you, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: i yield myself 30 seconds. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. conyers: i just want to say to my friend from florida, cliff stearns, you can't compare licensing, concealed-carry permits to drivers' licenses, and that's why this idea of yours, with all due respect, has never been passed by the congress before. the reason is that no state have the same way to automatically check a drivers' license for concealed-carry. i yield myself 15 additional seconds. you cannot compare carrying
2:10 pm
concealed weapons check with a driver's license because they are checkable. a concealed-carry weapon, there are states that odon't even permit the information to be revealed from their database. so you're making a huge error that i hope can be corrected. and with that, mr. speaker, i'd yield to the distinguished the gentlelady from california -- to the distinguished gentlelady from california, a member of the judiciary committee, one minute. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. chu: this issue could endanger people's lives. it hurts my home state of california which develops laws to protect citizens by developing criteria on those who could carry concealed-carry weapons. with this bill that all goes away. this bill is so bad that it even allows drug dealers convicted of selling drugs to
2:11 pm
minors to carry a concealed weapon. california would not allow it because such permits can only go to those of good moral character. but under this law we would have to accept the concealed weapon permit for every other state that allows weapons to these drug dealers. i offered an amendment in judiciary committee to stop this, but those on the other side of the aisle voted it down. with this bill, a person who endangers the lives of our children will be allowed to carry a concealed loaded gun nationwide and you would be powerless to stop it. it is the individual states that are in the best position to determine how to best protect its citizens. i strongly urge my colleagues to vote no on this dangerous bill. mr. smith: i'd like to yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from arizona, mr. franks. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 15 seconds. mr. franks: mr. chairman, i'd
2:12 pm
suggest to my friend, mr. conyers, that he's correct. one cannot compare this with -- strictly with people and driver's licenses. the fact is driver's license -- driving a car is not a fundamental right to defense as enshrined in our constitution. secondly, cars kill many more people than guns. and third, we don't usually defend ourselves with cars. the chair: the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: mr. chairman, i yield one minute to the gentleman from ohio, mr. austria. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. austria: thank you, mr. chairman. as a former chairman in the ohio senate -- of the ohio senate judiciary committee, i helped lead the fight to pass the first concealed-carry law. even with this law and this right and one of thousands of ohioans with a concealed-carry permit, i understand the need to reinforce our second amendment rights by resolving the confusion and the problems that exist when traveling between states. the national right-to-carry
2:13 pm
reciprocity act does just that, it allows ohioans and those with valid c.c.w. permits issued by their home states to go to 49 states where it is not prohibited. this bill has constituents to comply with their home state rules. the bill simply strengthens and protects our constituents' second amendment rights and that's why i've co-sponsored this legislation and look forward to its passage. thank you and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself just 30 seconds, to mr. scott. when we decide how we're going to cast our vote on this bill to realize you cannot compare a
2:14 pm
concealed weapon carry permit with a driver's license. but the states do not have the ability, they do not have the automated machinery to do that. many will not even release this information. it's considered a private matter. concealed-carry permit information cannot be revealed in many states, and i now turn to the former chairman of the subcommittee on crime, the distinguished member of the judiciary committee, bobby scott of virginia, for three minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. scott: thank you, mr. chairman. i thank you -- thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. chairman, h.r. 822 will harm public safety. that's why law enforcement organizations, such as the international association of chiefs of police, major cities'
2:15 pm
chiefs association and many other law enforcement organizations oppose this bill. this bill would allow people to use their concealed weapons permit in any state in the union without regard to the standards and requirements of those other states. this bill even allows people who are ineligible to get a concealed weapons permit in their home state to go out of state and get a permit and use that permit anywhere in the country except their home state. . some sits have minimum standards for those who may be eligible to carry a concealed weapon. for example, some states require firearms training. others deny permits to those who are under 21 or those with certain convictions for assaulting police officers, selling drugs to kids, sex offenses against children, or domestic violence. standards such as these would be overridden by this bill because permits from states without these standards would have to be
2:16 pm
recognized. many states already recognize concealed weapons permits from other states. my own state of virginia recognizes many states' concealed weapons permit, but it requires a 24-hour verification. for this reason many states do not enjoy reciprocity with virginia because 24-hour verification is not available. in fact, one state, colorado, didn't even maintain a data base, a statewide data base, so there could be no out-of-state verification. as it's been indicated a driver's license any time of day you can verify the validity of a driver's license. but the concealed weapons permit many states do not have 24-hour verification. an overriding the ability of states to control the carrying of concealed weapons by nonresidents, this bill would create a situation where the weakest state laws essentially become the national law. we'll be creating a race to the
2:17 pm
bottom in public safety. in consideration of this legislation has been a challenge because apparently many people in this body believe that if more people carried guns the crime rate would go down. reliable studies, however, point out that the possession of a firearm is much more likely to result in the death of a family member or neighbor than being used to thwart a crime. this bill will undermine public safety. we should let the states decide whether or not or under what conditions to allow people who are in their state to carry concealed handguns. i urge my colleagues, therefore, to vote against this legislation. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: i yield one minute to the gentleman from indiana. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> rights do not come from the government. we are in the words of the declaration of independence endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights.
2:18 pm
mr. stutzman the right to self-defense goes deep and cannot be taken away. the right to self-defense is a cornerstone for the second amendment. it is also the foundation for concealed carry laws across this country. i'm proud that my home state of indiana has established a responsible process for obtaining a lifetime permit. today, 49 states have some sort of right to carry law. mr. speaker, this bill ensures that permit holders in indiana like myself can exercise our right to self-defense when our families travel across our great country. if you follow the law, your permit from one state will be honored by another. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: mr. speaker, i yield myself 15 seconds, please. ladies and gentlemen, forgive my passion on the discussion of this subject. but almost 300 young people of
2:19 pm
african-american descent are injured or killed by gunfire from ages 15 to 24 every week. with that i would yield to my colleague, mike quigley, distinguished member of judiciary, from illinois, two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. quigley: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise in opposition to this measure. i, too, offered an amendment which failed in committee. my amendment would have prevented individuals convicted of assaulting a police officer or impersonating a police officer from carrying concealed loaded guns. several states that allow permits also denied them to those who have assaulted or impersonated cops. the law enforcement officials of these states have decided that that is what's best for their communities. this bill wipes those protections away and will go further. may i remind my friends here who
2:20 pm
are citing the constitution as their nexus for this law, that the right to keep and bear arms in the interest of self-defense of a person at home is not unlimited. as the justices wrote in the district of columbia vs. heller, quote, the right is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever for whatever purpose, end quote. frankly that's what the national right to carry reciprocity act purports. so for interpreting the 14th amendment, deeming the bill of rights applicable to the states in this manner as to the right to bear arms, then doesn't that argument also dictate each state interpret other states' desessions on other laws and statutes in the same manner? does this mean the states should acknowledge apportion rights from one state to the next? does this mean that states should acknowledge alcohol laws from one state to the next? does this mean that states should acknowledge marriage licenses from one state to the next? particularly when it comes to same-sex marriage? i have a feeling that many of my
2:21 pm
friends here today would answer those questions with a simple no. you see my trouble with today's premise then. i urge my colleagues to oppose this bill. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: i yield one minute to the gentlewoman from north carolina, mrs. ellmers. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. mrs. ellmers: thank you. i rise today in favor of h.r. 22, the right to bear arms is a stable of our constitution as a basic american right. and we should continue to protect it while making sure our laws remain efficient. i am one of 268,000 permit holders in north carolina. this is not only a right issue, more importantly it is a safety issue. as millions of american families can attest, there is no greater threat to our families than the ability to protect. we must protect our families and it cannot stop at states'
2:22 pm
borders. h.r. 822 also does not impact state laws governing how concealed firearms are possessed or carried. again it does not jeopardize the states' rights. i call on my colleagues to support this important piece of legislation and i yield back the balance of my time. thank you. mr. conyers: i yield myself 15 seconds. there are, my colleagues, over 65 million handguns in the united states. and in each year nearly 100,000 people in america every year are shot or killed with a firearm. i now yield to our distinguished judiciary colleague, a former magistrate from georgia, hank johnson, two minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. johnson: thank you, mr.
2:23 pm
chairman. mr. speaker, i rise today in opposition to this dangerous bill, the national right to carry reciprocity act. the 10th amendment of the bill of rights of the united states constitution provides as follows. the powers not delegated to the united states by the constitution nor prohibited by it to the states are reserved to the states respectively. or to the people. mr. speaker, this bill would override the laws of almost every state by forcing them to accept concealed carry gun permits from every other state even if the permit holder would not be allowed to carry a handgun in the state where he or she is traveling. this is ridiculous. each state should decide who may
2:24 pm
carry a concealed loaded gun within their borders. and the federal government should respect the state's rights to do so. the irony here is that the -- my friends on the tea party republican side of the aisle claim to respect state's rights. but then they rush this legislation to the house floor which tramples over state's rights. these tea party republicans claim they want to create jobs for the millions of unemployed americans in our nation, but they are not focusing on creating jobs. instead, they are bowing down to the national rifle association by moving this piece of special interest legislation forward. i urge my colleagues to oppose this dangerous bill and thank
2:25 pm
you. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: i yield a minute to the gentleman from minnesota, mr. klein, who is also -- mr. kline, who is also the chairman of the education and work force committee. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. kline: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. chairman, i rise today in strong, strong support of h.r. 822, the national right to carry reciprocity act. this bill provides important protections for gun owners and it's time -- its time is past due. as a retired marine and avid outdoorsman, i'm an experienced firearms owner and user. i hold a conceal carry pr mitt in the state of minnesota and i believe individuals have the right to keep and bear arms for the protection of their home, property, family, and person. they have that right. unfortunately, there have been a lot of miscarkizations surrounding this legislation. i have heard a lot of it today. to be clear this bill does not create a federal licensing of registration system. it does not create federal standards or infringe on the ability of states to make laws
2:26 pm
for a carry permit. it does not negatively affect states that have permitless carry systems. mr. chairman, this bill will protect law-abiding gun owners from current confusion caused by the wide array of state laws and preempt the threat of frivolous lawsuits very could face simply by traveling outside their home state. national right to carry reciprocity provides critical recognition that the second amendment rights of our constituents do not end when they cross state lines and this will enhance public safety. i urge my colleagues to stand for the second amendment, to stand for the rights of responsible gun owners who engage in gun safety, and i urge them to support h.r. 822. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield to our dear friend, jim moran, of virginia, 1 1/2 minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. moran: mr. speaker, the first reason this bill should be defeated is that it usurps state authority and replaces it with a
2:27 pm
lowest common denominator federal directive. this is a radical piece of legislation. in fact, today 43 states are not in compliance with this law. 38 states today prevent people from carrying concealed weapons if they have certain dangerous misdemeanor criminal convictions. 35 states require the completion of a gun -- short gun safety program. the commonwealth of virginia has weakened its gun laws over the past two years allowing concealed guns in bars and renewal of permits by mail. i disagree with these actions, but i would never question the general assembly's authority to make these decisions. but this bill makes our state legislature's judgment irrelevant. this is a federal power grab. coming from a majority that claims to be a defender of states' rights. the second reason that this bill should be defeated is that our law enforcement professionals oppose it.
2:28 pm
the international association of chiefs of police, the major cities police chief association, the virginia association of chiefs of police all oppose this bill. why? because they know that it will be nearly impossible for police to verify the validity of 49 different carry permits placing officers in potentially life threatening situations. some states don't even keep verifiable data bases of those who have been issued concealed carry permits. law enforcement is trying to curb illegal gun smuggling, but this bill allows traffickers with concealed carry permits to transport firearms and present an unverifiable permit if stopped by police. this is a blatant lemming overreach presumably because it was next on the n.r.a.'s legislative wish list. we should defeat this bill, mr. speaker. the chair: the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: the gentleman from arkansas, mr. ross. the chair: the gentleman from arkansas is recognized for one minute. mr. ross: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise today in strong support
2:29 pm
of h.r. 822. if you get a driver's license in arkansas, it's recognized in every state in the country. and if you have a conceal carry permit, the same rules should apply. our second amount rights to own and bear arms are universal, and our laws should reflect that as best they can. the national right to carry reciprocity act would allow every american citizen with a valid concealed carry permit to carry a concealed firearm in all states that allow them for lawful purposes. let me be clear, if your state bans concealed firearms, then this law will not affect that ban. this bill does not change any state laws about when and where you can carry a concealed firearm. this bill does not create a new federal licensing system. it simply reinforces our second amendment rights and makes the laws more fair for law-abiding
2:30 pm
gun owners. as a strong supporter of the second amendment, i believe we must pass the national right to carry reciprocity act now and i urge my colleagues to join me in voting for the bill. the chair: the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: i yield to the distinguished gentleman from new jersey, bill pascrell, 1 1/2 minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. . >> thank you, mr. speaker. the ranking member, mr. chairman. i had to make a choice on this bill. mr. pascrell: where whether i would support a disputable constitutional issue about whether you can by law carry a concealed weapon or move towards the other side to those who oppose this. now, who opposes this legislation? besides me?
2:31 pm
mayors against illegal guns, the international association of chiefs of police, the major cities chiefs association, and the police foundation oppose this bill. doesn't this mean anything to you at all? doesn't it? or does it? i'll prefer -- i prefer community policing than try to put more guns into the hands of those people who we don't even know who are going to be trained to even use them. that's my preference. this means my home state of new jersey -- this is not idaho, this is not montana. we're -- in fact, we have the most vastly populated state in the union. there is a different culture. when clinton argued on behalf of gun possession when he was the president of the united states, he always made this point about the cultural differences in different parts
2:32 pm
of the country. we respect that. i'm not against the second amendment. i support the second amendment. but i don't want those folks in the street who are outarmed -- outarm and outgun our police officers. 12,000 police officers we have in this country. thank you. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. pascrell: thank you. 12,000 less police officers in our streets. we should be worried about that as a priority rather than this as a priority. so i made the decision. the evidence is like this against doing this. we haven't had any legislation which took away one gun in the past 20 years from anybody in this country. not one. so we have made the perception being that we want to take guns away from people. how dare you even say, protect our police, don't vote for
2:33 pm
this? mr. smith: i yield one minute to the gentleman from illinois, mr. kinsinger. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. kinzinger: the right to bear arms is simple. when the guns are heard, it is thought it is criminals. this bill is about the right of law-abiding citizens to bear arms. illinois we have concealed-carry. there are people killed in chicago very often by guns that are already concealed. but not concealed by law-abiding citizens. illinois' the only state that doesn't allow a form of it legally. i want h.r. 8 2 to be a clear sign to the governor of illinois that now is the time to join the rest of the country in allowing citizens the right to conceal a firearm on their person. we hear so much of the -- if we allow people to carry guns,
2:34 pm
more people are going to be killed, but that flies in the face of statistics. after 2008, there was a record number of guns purchased, but we saw crime drop almost everywhere. bar none. my point is that in the law-abiding citizens in this country are not the problem. illinois needs to join the rest of the country in supporting concealed-carry for its citizens and i believe this is a sign that it's time to do so now and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield to the distinguished gentlelady from florida, debbie wasserman schultz, a former member of the judiciary committee, two minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. ms. wasserman schultz: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in opposition to h.r. 822, the national right to carry reciprocity act. this ill conceived bill is yet another distraction from what should be the most pressing concern of this congress, putting americans back to work.
2:35 pm
what's more disturbing is that this bill jeopardizes public safety by mandating that states honor even the most laxed concealed weapons laws of other states. the gentleman from illinois is incorrect. this is about criminals. from my constituents in south florida, gun control is a serious issue. miami-dade county has one of the highest rates of gun violence in the country. and in the entire state of florida, there are 8,000 permits for concealed firearms. florida's process for issuing license is problematic enough and i would certainly not suggest foisting it on any other state that has stronger safeguards to protect its citizens. but this bill will do exactly that. for states that require age minute mums or safety training before getting a concealed weapon permit or prohibits certain violent offenders from getting a license in the first place, this goes out the window if this bill is passed into law. what we get is the worst of the worst, the lowest common denominator. for example, in just one
2:36 pm
six-month period in 2006, florida gave concealed license to more than 1,400 individuals who pleaded guilty or no contest to felonies. 216 of them had outstanding warrants. 128 of them had active domestic violence injunctions. under this bill other states will be mandated to honor these permits. they'll be mandated to allow florida self-admitted felons to carry concealed weapons in their states. this is why the law enforcement organizations strongly oppose this bill. it's opposed by more than 600 members of the bipartisan mayors against illegal guns, including many of my local mayors of both parties in south florida. why would this bill be a higher ply or the than creating jobs -- priority than creating jobs? the house majority still has no jobs agenda. regardless of how americans feel about guns, the overwhelming majority would agree that gun policy is not a higher priority than job creation is right now. i urge my colleagues to vote no on this bill and i urge my
2:37 pm
friends across the aisle to stop putting american lives at risk and start putting them back to work. thank you. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: mr. chairman, i yield one minute to mr. coble, who is also the chairman of the court subcommittee of the judiciary committee. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. coble: i thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i rise in support of h.r. 822, concealed-carry permits may be the most scrutinized permits for gun owners to receive. unfortunately, the manner in which these permits are recognized by various states is confusing and inconsistent. h.r. 822 will help resolve this dilemma, mr. chairman. for example, in my home state of north carolina, concealed-carry permits from south carolina and georgia are recognized, but not permits from new mexico. meanwhile, new mexico readily recognizes concealed-carry permits from north carolina. if enacted there would be no discrepancy over which permits are valid. another reason for supporting h.r. 822 is that it protects states' sovereignty.
2:38 pm
states are not required to issue concealed-carry permits and state laws regarding the use of ownership of firearms are explicitly preserved. i firmly believe that the second amendment -- individuals to own a firearm, mr. chairman. i also believe that ownership and use of a firearm carries a special level of personal responsibility. this bill promotes both of these ideas and if enacted it will help make america safer which probably explains why this bill has 245 co-sponsors. i thank the chairman and yield back. the chair: the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: mr. speaker, i am pleased to yield to the distinguished gentleman from new jersey, rush holt, two minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. holt: i thank the gentleman. mr. speaker, this is another great example of legislation in search of a problem. driven by ideological fervor of its sponsors rather than by any practical approach to safety,
2:39 pm
h.r. 822 would amend existing federal law to establish a national standard for carrying concealed firearms. as the sponsors well know, these matters have long been the province of the states. it's fascinating how quickly the majority ignores the 10th amendment when the gun lobbying comes calling. why needlessly create a conflict or should i say a shootout between the second and the 10th amendment? passage of the law enforcement officers safety act of 2004, which i voted for and which permits qualified law enforcement officers to carry concealed firearms across states, makes this essentially redundant and unnecessary. the bill before us would have the effect of overriding new jersey's own laws in this area which police officers and hunters and other citizens tell me works well and keeps our citizens safe. ask our law enforcement officers. they'll tell you new jerseyans live well one our -- within our
2:40 pm
gun safety laws. we don't need other laxed laws. others have said but maybe it's worth repeating. this body should be focusing on creating jobs, not passing ideologically driven special interest legislation that would endanger public safety, subvert the constitutional order and go against the interests and the declared recommendation of law enforcement officers all across the u.s. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the chair would inform the managers, the gentleman from texas has 9 1/4 minutes remaining. the gentleman from michigan has 2 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: i yield one minute to the gentleman from california, mr. lungren. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. lungren: thank you very
2:41 pm
much, mr. chairman. i strongly support the second amendment for that reason i signed on and the heller case and the mcdonald vs. the city of chicago case, upholding the right to bear arms as an individual constitutional right. i believe that. at the same time as the former attorney general of california, i continue to have a deep and abiding commitment to preserving states' rights in the manner which the founders envisioned, the notion of federalism. and under the 10th amendment it is obvious that the constitution alindicates what are known generally as police powers to the states to protect public safety and health. that's why i object to some of our legislation to expand the federal role in tort law and in marriage law because you -- it's not just those things you necessarily agree with, but it's tougher when it's those things you may disagree with that are left to the states. some people have talked about licenses here. you don't have a right to take your license to practice
2:42 pm
medicine or law to the next state. we have not required that. we allow states to do that. and here's the other things. my states are one of the most liberal. we have too liberal a law with respect to concealed weapons but the only way the liberal state legislature in california will follow this is by following illinois bus because it's the only way to get a limit, as they see it, on these sorts of things. would the gentleman give me a little more time? mr. conyers: i give you 15 seconds. mr. lungren: people in my state might have to worry about it because it will get rid of all concealed weapons permits because unfortunately under this legislation that's the only thing they can do to police the eligibility of those who get concealed weapons permits. so this does coat both ways. i think we ought to understand that states' rights are a legitimate argument here on this floor. the chair: the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: mr. speaker, i yield
2:43 pm
one minute to the gentleman from utah, mr. matheson. the chair: the gentleman from utah is recognized for one minute. mr. matheson: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to thank my colleague, mr. stearns, for introducing the bill before us today. i support this bipartisan legislation for two reasons. one, i believe that our gun laws should ensure that a responsible law-abiding individual is able to exercise the second amendment right to carry firearms and, two, this bill simplifies what is now a piecemeal system of reciprocal agreements among the states. there are millions of concealed-carry holders in this nation including those in my state. they can legally carry a weapon for self-defense. by passing this bill we will ensure that when they travel to other states they will exercise their right to self-defense while away from home. this does not ceal a federal licensing system, it does not allow them to carry them to states like illinois. i think this addresses the criticism of this legislation to determine who can carry
2:44 pm
conceal weapons within the states' borders. they are required to be aware of and abide by that state's rules. as a strong supporter of sect amendment rights, i support this legislation and urge its adoption. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: mr. chairman, i'll yield one minute to the gentleman from new york, -- the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> i thank the chairman for yielding. mr. speaker, i rise today in strong support of h.r. 822, the national right-to-carry reciprocity act. this bill is about freedom. it's about the constitution and our bill of rights. this bill is about the second amendment right. as with all of the amendments contained in the bill of rights, these were borne out of our experiences with king george and a desire to prevent such abuses of power in our republic. indeed, at the outset of hostilities during the revolution, the british army marched unconquered to confiscate our guns and extinguish our freedoms.
2:45 pm
the founders put the second amendment in the bill of rights to assure our right to keep and bear arms and to safeguard our liberty. mr. gibson: this is a nonpartisan bill, at least in my districts. democrats, republicans hold dear our bill of rights. the premise of the -- the premise of 822 is very simple. if a citizen is permitted to carry a concealed weapon in one state, other states in a have a concealed-carry law will honor and recognize it. supporting and strengthening the second amendment. i urge my colleagues to support it, and i yield back. . the chair: the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from virginia, mr. goodlatte. the chair: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for two minutes. mr. goodlatte: i thank the chairman for yielding and for his leadership on this issue. mr. speaker, i rise today in strong support of h.r. 822, the national right to carry reciprocity act of 2011. this bipartisan bill has 245 co-sponsors and enhances
2:46 pm
american's right to self-defense by enabling millions of permit holders to exercise their right to self-defense while traveling outside their home states. the second amendment is in the united states constitution and we are all taking an oath in this body to uphold the united states constitution, including rights upped the second amendment. and the 10th amendment is certainly an important right as well, but it does not trump the right or the responsibility of this body to protect rights under the second amendment. 49 states have laws that permit their citizens to carry a concealed firearm in some fashion or another. unlike drivers licenses, however, conceal carry permits in one state are not always authorized to carry their firearms when traveling outside their home state. h.r. 822 remedies this problem by granting concealed carry permit holders reciprocity between states. the firearm owner must abide by all applicable state laws when
2:47 pm
carrying in a foreign jurisdiction. this bill affirms the second amendment, that's a second amendment, protects the fundamental individual right to keep and bear arms and that the states cannot unreasonably infringe upon that right. in mcdonald vs. chicago, the supreme court concluded that the due process clause of the 14th amendment incorporates the second amendment right recognized by the supreme court in the district of columbia versus heller. this bill does not create any kind of federal bureaucracy that may concern some people. it simply extends to them their second amendment rights when they travel in other states. h.r. 822 recognizes that right and i urge my colleagues to support this measure. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from texas has 4 1/4 minutes remaining. the gentleman from michigan has 2 1/4 minutes remaining. the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: mr. speaker, i yield the balance of our time to
2:48 pm
the distinguished gentleman from georgia, mr. rob woodall. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 2 1/4 minutes. mr. woodall: thank you, mr. chairman. i thank the gentleman for yielding. i love the second amendment. i got my first gun from santa claus when i was years old. first handgun i ever fired, wasn't my dad or my uncle's or grandfather's, it was my mother's. i got my first concealed carry application filled out as a freshman in law school, lived in a bad neighborhood, needed it for self-protection, i have had it for the last 20 years. i love the second amendment. but if the second amendment protects my rights to carry my concealed weapon from state to state to state, i don't need another federal law to say, yeah, i mean it. it's already protected. and if the second amendment doesn't protect my right to carry a concealed weapon from state to state to state, then the 9th and 10th amendments
2:49 pm
leave that responsibility to individuals and the states to regulate on their own. i came to congress to protect freedom. i don't believe the second amendment was put in the bill of rights to allow me to shoot targets. i don't believe the second amendment was put in the bill of rights to allow me to hunt for deer and turkey. i think the second amendment was put in the bill of rights so that i could defend my freedom against an overbearing federal government. i don't want the federal government in any issue of the law where the constitution does not require it. and it does not require it here. don't tell me it's an interstate commerce clause issue. we dismissed that on my side of the aisle regularly. don't tell me it's necessary and proper. we dismiss that on our side of the aisle regularly. and don't tell me it's full faith and credit because we dismiss that on our side of the aisle regularly. the temptation to legislate is
2:50 pm
great. the temptation is great. i absolutely believe in the intent of this legislation. i want the right to carry from coast to coast, georgia has already orchestrated reciprocity agreements with 25 states. we've got 24 more to go. the second amendment exists. so that we can keep and bear arms to defend ourself against government no matter how well intended. rather than arms, i ask my colleagues to use their voting cards today to defend us. against the overreach of federal government no matter how well intended. i thank the gentleman for yielding. the chair: the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: mr. chairman, i yield one minute to the gentleman from alaska, mr. young. the chair: the gentleman from alaska is recognized for one minute. mr. young: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i have listened to this debate. this is a reciprocity vote
2:51 pm
allows me to carry my weapon as i carried for the last 50 years from one state to another as long as i have a permit and they do also. but more than that, i am a little bit resentful when i hear on the floor this is the will of the n.r.a. i'm a lifetime member since i could vote. i am a member today. i participate in their board meetings and i'm proud of that organization. it's probably one of the leading organizations to cast that in the form of they are not the people of america is wrong. the greatest strength the n.r.a. has is its members. talk about how strong they are as a lobbying group. the lobbying group is the citizen. the citizen that wants to carry his arm as permitted across state lands as they do with the driver's license. this is a good piece of legislation. i'm glad we are having this discussion. there can be differences of
2:52 pm
opinion, but don't take it away from myself to go from alaska with my permit and go into the other 38 states that have -- i believe 38 or 40 states that have permits and i can't use my permit. that's wrong. let's vet for this legislation. the chair: the gentleman from texas has 3 1/4 minutes reremaining. mr. shoot: i yield one minute to the gentlewoman from florida. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. miss adam -- mrs. adams: as a former law enforcement officer and state representative i have dealt with issues relating to our second amendment rights. it's interesting when i hear some of the flurring between gun purchases and a concealed carry permit. i have done both. and as a law enforcement officer i would like to know if someone would tell me hey i have a conceal carry permit and weapon rather than finding it either by accident or having it pointed at me. i stand in great support of this piece of legislation.
2:53 pm
i do believe it is good legislation. it will not harm the people as i have heard here on the floor. and i have heard that we aren't working on jobs. well, i beg to differ that issue because we have passed over 20 bills sitting in the senate that have not been heard that would relate to jobs. so, yes, we are working on jobs and the economy. and we are also working on other issues that are brought to us from our constituents. i stand in great support of 822. thank you. the chair: the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: i yield myself the balance of the time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 2 1/4 minutes. mr. smith: h.r. 822 is important legislation that recognizes that americans' ability to exercise their fundamental constitutional right should not disappear at their states' -- state's border. the parade of horribles that have been alleged by some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are not true. federal law already prohibits felons, domestic abusers, and illegal drug users from possessing a firearm. this legislation does not change that.
2:54 pm
if a person is prohibited from possessing a firearm under federal law, they cannot carry a concealed weapon under this bill. the arguments we have heard so often today against this legislation are against guns in the hands of violent criminals, generally, not against legally permitted concealed weapons. conceal carry laws have shown that concealed weapons actually lower violent crime rates in a jurisdiction. h.r. 822 simply permits law-abiding americans to take their second amendment rights with them when they travel. i urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan piece of legislation. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: all time for general debate has expired. pursuant to the rule, the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in bill shall be considered as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule and shall be considered as read. no amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in house report 112-283. each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report by a
2:55 pm
member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to -- shall not be subject to demand for division of the question. it is now in order to consider amendment number one printed in report 112-283. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? mr. woodall: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1 printed in house report number 112-283, offered by mr. woodall of georgia. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 463, the gentleman from georgia, mr. woodall, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes, the chair recognizes the gentleman from georgia. mr. woodall: i thank the chairman. the amendment i have introduced today because i have such appreciation for the goal of h.r. 822 says understanding what we are trying to get as
2:56 pm
reciprocity across the nation, for all those states and all those citizens that have already labored in the vineyards to achieve reciprocity, let's leave those state agreements in place. if we must take more federal responsibility, let's not take it from those areas where the states are working. where the process is working. you live if my next door neighbor state of alabama, you already recognize 22 other states' permits. in georgia we recognize 23. in florida to our south, 33. the system is working today. legislatures are working out these agreements today if we must expand the size and scope of the federal reach, in the gun law legislation, let's not trample on those agreements that already exist to achieve this goal that so many share. i absolutely support the goal of
2:57 pm
h.r. 822 which is to ensure that all americans have concealed carry reciprocity across the nation. that is already happening today, mr. chairman. through state legislatures, attorney generals, my amendment would leave those agreements in place and preserve the rights of states to continue to legislate and regulate in this area. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. smith: i oppose the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. smith: this amendment undercuts the uniform eligibility standard that provides the foundation for this legislation. the underlying bill allows individuals with valid permits to carry a concealed firearm in other states that also authorize conceal carry. this second amendment right to bear arms is limited by this amendment. 49 states authorize conceal carry and 40 of those states
2:58 pm
have reciprocity agreements with all or some of the other conceal carry states. but knees agreements vary from state to state, creating a patchwork of laws that limits reciprocity, creates confusion for gun owners, and undermines the second amendment. the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia keeps this patchwork in place by exempting states with reciprocity agreements from the bill. the amendment prevents individuals from taking advantage of nationwide conceal carry reciprocity unless the state they reside in has a separate agreement with the state they wish to travel to. while i appreciate my colleagues' -- colleague's dedication to the concept of states' rights, i think it is misapplied to this legislation. h.r. 822 upholds states' rights in several important ways. first, it does not apply to those jurisdiction that is prohibit conceal carry such as illinois and the district of columbia. second, the bill does not affect a state's right to set eligibility requirements for its
2:59 pm
own residents. third, h.r. 822 does not impact state laws governing how concealed firearms are opposed or carried within the various states. all state, federal, and local laws that prohibit, for example, carrying a concealed handgun in a public building or place of worship apply equally to a nonresident concealed carry holder. and fourth, this legislation does not create any authority for the federal government to regulate conceal carry permits. no federal agency has any role in the implementation or oversight of this bill which is left rightfully up to the states. but most importantly, this bill respects and protects an individual's right to bear arms while they are traveling. in two recent decisions, the u.s. supreme court affirmed that the second amendment endows individuals with the right to keep and bear arms. and this right is based in large part on the right to defend one's self.
3:00 pm
americans don't need to simply defend themselves in their homes, they must also be able to defend themselves outside their homes and while traveling to other states. 80% of violent crime occurs outside the home, according to the justice department. americans cannot fully be empowered to defend themselves if they are prevented from exercising all their second amendment rights. . this advances the second amendment right to bear arms and i regret i believe that this amendment infringes upon that right. for these reasons i oppose the amendment and i'll reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from georgia. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and i thank the chairman of the committee for his work on these issues. mr. woodall: and i agree with so much of what he had to say. it is absolutely true that the merit of this legislation is that it eliminates the patchwork of reciprocity agreements that go on across this country and the price we pay for eliminating that patchwork is trampling upon the work of the states. i'm a freshman in this house,
3:01 pm
mr. chairman. and i think small government conservatives in previous congresses have lost their way. particularly during the bush administration, they went a long -- along with a huge expansion of government regulation with the very best of intentions. they went around -- went along with a huge expansion of the size of government, with the very best of intentions. they increased the regulatory burden of the federal government with the very best of intentions. and this bill today is brought with the very best of intentions. but when previous congresses have gone along with the very best of intentions, personal freedom and liberty have been eroded. even with the very best of intentions. mr. speaker, the only thing that happens at the woodall -- if the woodall amendment passes today is that agreements that already exist for reciprocity and any
3:02 pm
future agreements made for reciprocity will be held supreme over a unified federal standard. i ask my colleagues, my republican colleagues and my democratic colleagues, isn't it worth it? isn't sacrificing a uniform framework worth it? to protect the rights of state legislatures and the work of citizens across this country, that they have put in to protect, preserve and promote second amendment rights across this nation? and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: may i ask the chairman how much time i have remaining? the chair: the gentleman has two minutes remaining. mr. smith: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from georgia, mr. johnson. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. johnson: thank you, mr. chairman, for yielding the time. mr. speaker, i rise in support of congressman woodall's
3:03 pm
amendment. i would point out that currently states have the ability to enter into reciprocity agreements with other states. this legislation, should it pass, would take that ability away. it would mandate that there be this reciprocity agreement. and that's a usurpation of states' rights. the n.r.a. as a lobbying organization, which is quite powerful here in washington, d.c. i will say that. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: mr. speaker, i yield myself the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. smith: mr. speaker, the whole point of this bill is to allow those that have concealed carry permits to freely carry their weapons into other states that also have and recognize concealed carry permits.
3:04 pm
if we were to accept this amendment we in my judgment would be infringing upon the second amendment. i feel that the second amendment should be enforced, we ought to interpret it broadly, we ought to allow individuals to take advantage of their second amendment rights, travel freely from one state to another without restrictions, accept for the restrictions that are required locally by their state and local governments. i mentioned a while ago that one recognition of state prerogatives that we have in the bill is that, for example, if one state does not allow individuals with concealed carry permits to go into a public building or a sports event or some other type of location, they are not going to be allowed to do so even if they have a concealed carry permit from out of state. so once again, we need to respect the right that is given to us by the second amendment in a complete, full way. we need to allow individuals with concealed carry permits to travel freely from state to state. this bill, underlying bill, does that with one exception, the state of illinois does not
3:05 pm
recognize concealed carry permit, you will not be able to carry a weapon into that state. except for that one state, we need to embrace the second amendment in every way that we can, recognize the supreme court has done the same thing, allow individuals to travel with those concealed carry permits. i'll yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: on that i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 2 printed in house report 112-283. for what purpose does the gentleman from -- the gentlewoman from new york rise? mrs. mccarthy: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2 printed in house report 112-283 offered by mrs. mccarthy of new york. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 463, the gentlewoman
3:06 pm
from new york and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from new york. mrs. mccarthy: thank you, mr. chairman. i would also like to thank my colleague from michigan, mr. conyers, for working with me on this issue. i rise totally in opposition to h.r. 822. it saddens me but it does not surprise me that we're here having this debate today. h.r. 822 is unnecessary and seriously flawed piece of legislation. this bill overrides the decisions and forces them to recognize concealed carry gun permits from every other state. almost every state currently allows carry permits, but states differ substantially in regards to the permitting requirements. they have different minimum age requirements, some states require safety training before receiving a permit. in some states bar people convicted of certain crimes. these different requirements have been put in place by the elected legislators of the
3:07 pm
states who did so with an understanding of the specific needs of their communities. h.r. 822 erases all of that and creates an unworkable system. under this bill states with strong gun safety laws such as new york, california, massachusetts, would allow out-of-state visitors, potentially as young as 18, to walk down our streets armed and dangerous. there are states in our nation that don't require a background check before issuing a concealed carry permit. there are states in our nation that don't require any firearm training before letting people walk around with a concealed weapon. these are decisions that those states made for themselves. i don't want those decisions imposed upon the communities i represent and neither should anybody else. also, police officers would be faced with a task of attempting to determine the authority of permits from 48 other states on
3:08 pm
the fly and a potentially and certainly in intense situations. simply put, this bill is anticommunity, antisafety and antiplit -- antipolice. and finally the bill attempts to solve a problem that simply does not exist. many states have chosen to enter into these agreements with other states to honor each other's concealed carry permits. nothing is stopping a state from recognizing a permit from any other state. the fact that states have not done so represents a deliberate choice, a deliberate choice to only enter into agreements with states that they feel have the proper approach to issuing a concealed carry permit. the federal government should not be second guessing the decision of the states in this matter. it saddens me but does not surprise me. we are here today discussing not how to make americans safer and reduce gun violence, but instead we are talking about how to weaken our go gun laws and consider -- our gun laws and considering a bill that takes local decision out of the hands
3:09 pm
of the local officials. the gun manufacturing lobby will try to say otherwise, but i fully support the constitution as my colleague had mentioned before. i believe in the right to the second amendment and i support law-abiding gun owners. it's the absence of a perfect nonviolent society, however, we must make laws to protect the public. i notice firsthand, after all, it was with a man with a concealed handgun that took the life of my husband and gravely wounded my son. on long island railroad back in 1993. now you may hear arguments today that -- about interstate commerce as a justification for this bill. but this this bill has nothing to do with interstate commerce. this bill is simply about the federal government overriding a states' laws about who can carry a concealed weapon. you may also hear comparisons to state-issued driver's license, again, which is recognized nationwide. if you want to compare guns to cars, as the gun lobby often
3:10 pm
likes to do, let's have this conversation. cars use are among the most heavily regulated consumer products and activities in the united states, due to the safety risk they pose. one thing that does surprise me, though, is why so many of the supporters of this bill who have been so vocal about defendsing state rights in the past are now choosing in this instance to trample on state rights. federalism dictates that some things should remain in the states and some things should be addressed at the national level. and going back to the matter of interstate commerce, i'm sure all americans would love to see the house address interstate commerce in a more direct way. which is getting the americans back to work and growing comet. we should be talking about how to create jobs and prepare the next generation to succeed in the global economy. instead we're talking about how to trample on states' rights, weaken gun laws and make america less safe. all to please our country's powerful gun lobby.
3:11 pm
so as i said, it saddens me but it does not surprise me that we're having this debate today. i have an amendment under which states would be required to proactively op in to the agreements called for by h.r. 822. the intent of this amendment is to acquire that states pass legislation enacting the provisions of h.r. 822 before the bill can go into effect in that state. this would restore state rights, something i believe in, and i urge my colleagues to support this amendment and oppose h.r. 822. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: mr. chairman, i pose the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. smith: mr. chairman, this amendment frustrates the basic purpose of h.r. 822. it requires that states pass legislation to implement the bill's provisions. the supreme court in two recent cases has recognized a fundamental individual right to bear arms that is largely based on the right to defend onessel
3:12 pm
-- one's self and one's family. violent crime occurs outside one's home. this means that for the right to bear arms in self-defense to have any meaning, law-abiding citizens with permit chicago cubs able to carry firearms outside of their homes and sometimes across state boundaries. urnt -- under current law, 40 states have agreements that can be confusing for concealed carry permit holders to navigate. h.r. 822 provides uniformity to our concealed carry laws, by creating nationwide reciprocity for concealed carry permit holders. by contrast, this amendment allows states to opt out of h.r. 822's federal granted reciprocity and it provides that only states that choose to pass laws implementing the legislation must recognize out-of-state concealed carry permits. this amendment would in effect just continue the status quo and so it would be of no help to individuals with concealed carry permits. since -- since 2004 police
3:13 pm
officers have enjoyed the right to use a concealed carry permit to take a firearm across state lines. mrs. mccarthy: will the gentleman yield? mr. smith: i'd like to complete my statement, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman from texas controls the time. mr. smith: since 2004 police officers have enjoyed the right to use a concealed carry permit to take a firearm across state lines. and in 2010 president obama signed legislation to include other law enforcement personnel who can take advantage of this ability. it is ironic that some of these groups now want to deny the same right to law-abiding citizens with concealed carry permits. according to a 2009 poll, 83% of those polled said they supported concealed carry laws. 83%. over four million americans across the country have qualified for concealed carry permits. they most likely endorse this legislation. i appreciate the gentlewoman from new york mentioning states' prerogatives and i hope she will express the same sentiments about other pieces of
3:14 pm
legislation. h.r. 822 retains the states' ability to regulate fire narms their own states by making clear that all state regulations regarding how a firearm is carried continue to apply to both residents and nonresidents and by keeping in place the states' own permitting process. i urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this amendment and i'll yield back the balance of my time. mrs. mccarthy: will the gentleman yield? the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from new york. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mrs. mccarthy: on that i'd like a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18 further frodings -- proceedings on this amendment will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 3 printed in house report 112-283. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? mr. hastings: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will dessnailt the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 3 printed in house report 11-283 offered by mr. hastings of
3:15 pm
florida. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 463, the gentleman from florida, mr. hastings, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: thank you, mr. chairman. my amendment would exempt states from right-to-carry reciprocity when the state does not require individuals to apply for and complete a carry permit application at their local law enforcement station. the united states congress should never be in the business of stripping states of the right to make their own decisions about whether to recognize other states' permits. states have put forward a considerable amount of time trying to determine just what is best for their citizenry in reference to safety. by overriding state-based conceal carry laws an forcing states to recognize conceal carry permits from every other
3:16 pm
state, we are putting our state and local law enforcement in grave danger. two nights ago, with the sheriff in my county, we discussed this matter. i might add a republican sheriff, who is a friend of mine. we discussed this matter and we concluded that it's going to be very difficult to get people to want to become police officers, not only are they being attacked in reference to their organizing efforts, but now we are going to make it difficult for them to do their job. this amendment closes that loophole that would otherwise be created by h.r. 8 2. almost every state allows conceal carry in some form. but states differ in how they implement their conceal carry policies, including having, as has been mentioned, different age requirements, training
3:17 pm
requirements and excluding individuals guilty of certain crimes. one of these major discrepancies is addressed in this amendment and will force a state wishing to enforce h.r. 822 state reciprocity requirement to make certain carry permit applications -- make sure that they are completed at an individual's local law enforcement station. in my home state of florida, conceal carry permits may be granted to nonresidents and all applicants are allowed to apply by mail. it is so easy that a staffer in one of our offices was able to complete the form in less than 30 minutes. if h.r. 822 passes, residents and nonresidents of florida will be able to apply by mail from almost anywhere in the country and use their concealed carry permits throughout the
3:18 pm
country. mr. speaker, gun violence continues to grow at astounding levels in the united states. when the surgeon general was mr. hatcher, he called it an epidemic and even said it was a health crisis, so many people were killing each other with weapons. >> would the gentleman yield? mr. hastings: i will. >> i thank the gentleman for his amendment and rise in support of it and observe that last year, 70%, over 70% of utah's concealed carry permits were issued to nonresidents. and so i ask unanimous consent to add my statement to the record and i commend the gentleman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's statement is covered -- the chair: the gentleman's statement is covered under general leave. mr. hastings: mr. chairman, we -- the last thing we need is to
3:19 pm
tell sovereign states that they are no longer free to make the decision to require an in-person interview when making a gun permit determination. at least 10 states grant law enforcement broad discretion to deny permits to carry concealed, loaded guns based on an applicant's record or other factors. 14 other states grant more limited discretion. at least 14 states require applicants to show good moral character. many of these states require applicants to present themselves in person. for interviews. for example, applicants in new york must complete an in-person interview to receive their carry permit. by contrast, utah applicants, as has been pointed out by the ranking member, can submit their application by mail and can complete the fingerprinting and firearm safety training requirements outside of the state. in comparison, utah's driver's
3:20 pm
license application specifically requires, and rightly so, that applicants submit the application in person that it be note arized and that the employee initial the application upon submission. utah also grants permits to nonresidents, potentially allowing individuals nationwide to apply for permits by mail. supporters of h.r. 822 claim that cob seal carry permits should be treated like driver's licenses. my amendment points out, however, that this is yet another instance of my friends' hypocrisy. the rest of my statement will be included and i thank the chairman for the time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> i rise in opposition to the amendment. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> this would gut the bill. as written, it allows a visitor to carry a handgun under the
3:21 pm
provisions of the bill only in states that require applications to be completed and submitted in person. however, few states have such a requirement for nonresidents. this amendment would create unnecessary confusion. mr. chabot feather for example, florida accept -- mr. chabot: for example, florida accepts applications by mail but other states do not. a virginia resident who held a valid permit could carry a handgun in washington, which requires a person to apply in person, but not in florida. it is possible the amendment was intended to allow interstate carry only for those in person. that's not how it's drafted. even if it were, it would still
3:22 pm
gut the bill. any applications or fingerprinting requirements for a resident or nonresident to obtain a conceal carry permit are in addition to other requirementings, including a national instant background check that an applicant must go through first to legally purchase a gun. despite what some opponents would have you believe, not everyone who owns a gun is a criminal. and in fact, there is overwhelming evidence to show that concealed carry laws have resulted in lower crime rates in most states. typically, most criminals don't bother with legally purchasing a gun and then making sure they have a valid permit before they carry it concealed. they just do it. that's why we call them criminals. i urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from florida's time has expired.
3:23 pm
the gentleman from florida's time has expired. mr. chabot: i yield back my time. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mr. chabot: i request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment of the gentleman from florida will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number four. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas rise? ms. jackson lee: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: earment number four printed in house report, offered by the gentlewoman from texas. the chair: the gentlewoman from texas, ms. jackson lee, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. ms. jackson lee: i am hoping there will be no member that will oppose a commonsense amendment that allows law enforcement officer to be more
3:24 pm
protected. one might think as i point to this poster of a nurse giving a shot, one might think i would be more in line with the discussion if i put a picture of a police but -- police officer. but i use this to show that a child is squinting in pain for an immunization that won't harm them but someone who stole someone's gun that comes with the national conceal law, may not have a squinting child but a dead child. let me give you an example of the legislation or the amendment that i have in realtime. a north harris police officer
3:25 pm
in 2008 had a traffic. before he went to this individual that he was stopping, he dutyfully went to the dispatcher, a database to find out who this might be. tragically, it was not soon enough because a gun was taken and he was shot dead. he leaves behind a wife and two children. albeit the fact that i have a child here, because i'm simply trying to create a simple amendment to this bill that would protect our law enforcement. what does my amendment do? it ensures a comprehensive database is created to provide a listing of individuals from each state who possess permits and licenses to carry concealed weapons. this would also require that the concealed weapons database be available to law enforcement officers in all states 24 hours a day. thank goodness because of federal funding many of our law enforcement officers have laptops and maybe ipads. this database is a simple
3:26 pm
process. it is interesting, or it should be known that 36 states are especially adversely impacted by this bill because 36 states do not grant any reciprocity. 27 states recognize concealed carry permits from only select states. so a 24-hour database, i believe, would do what republicans and democrats say they want to do. protect law enforcement officers. failing to implement a national system that would allow law enforcement officials to check the status of individuals who are legally allowed to carry a concealed gun would result in a routine situation such as a traffic stop becoming a life threatening situation. if an officer discovered a gun in a routine traffic stop, the officer might quickly and accurately determine this guy is legal. as to whether they possess a valid out of state permit. yes, we could offer reciprocity but does the officer on the street walk around and look at the car coming across the border of their state and the
3:27 pm
sign says, we have reciprocity, i'm from such and such, i am ok. it's nearly impossible for the officer to check the validity of 46 carry permits. even if that person is legally carrying it based on a permit from another state. coringt the majority's report, only 18 states maintain an electronic database of conceal carry permits that are immediately accessible to other law enforcement agencies. seven states can't apply this access to out of state agencies and two states did not maintain a database for their own purposes. this amendment give ours local law enforcement a plausible chance to verify whether out of state concealed carry permits are legitimate. i'd love to offer a moment to my ranking member. on this amendment. the chair: the gentlelady has
3:28 pm
one minute remaining. mr. conyers: i fully support the gentlelady's approach in supporting a database. i plead with my colleagues to join us in the bipartisan sense to support an amendment that would key ate a comprehensive mechanism so that all permits and licenses for carrying concealed weapons would be available on a 24-hour-a-day basis. i congratulate the gentlelady on her amendment. ms. jackson lee: i thank the gentleman for his kindness. who can oppose such a simple amendment particularly when it's noted that some states don't have this electronic database. the officer who went to his
3:29 pm
dispatcher was doing the right thing he lost his life, left behind his children. do we want squinting children getting an immunization shot or dead children. i yield back. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> this seeks to force all states to maintain a database. this amendment, aside from being a version of ncic for law-abiding citizens is unnecessary. a number of states make their databases accessible to law enforcement through the inlet system which officers in all 50 states can use to determine if someone visitting from another state is legally carrying a concealed weapon. mr. gowdy: this is available 24
3:30 pm
hours a day. they can use a database to determine if a person has a warrant out for their arrest, but the fundamental flaw of this amendment is that it continues to place conditions and restraints on law-abiding citizens, all the while ignoring the obvious which is people intent on doing harm do not register their firearms nor call ahead to report their travel schedule. no day da -- database has jet been created that can determine if a person with a firearm intends to use it in an illegal matter. officers are trained to be careful in every situation and have the authority to take necessary precautions to ensure the safety of those on the scene of an investigative stop. this amendment, as is true with many other amendments is premised on the flawed view that concealed carry permit
3:31 pm
owners pose a threat to public safety. people intent on committing illegal acts will not go to the trouble of obtaining a conceal carry permit and statistics back that up. i oppose the amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from texas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the gentleman from -- pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18 further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from texas will be post pobed -- postponed. the chair understands that amendment number 5 will not be offered. it is now in order to consider amendment number 6 printed in house report 112-283. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 6 printed in house report 112-283
3:32 pm
offered by mr. johnson of georgia. the chair: the gentleman from georgia, mr. johnson, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from georgia. mr. johnson: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in support of my amendment to this dangerous bill, the national right-to-carry reciprocity act. my amendment is about protecting a state's right to decide who may carry a concealed, loaded handgun within its borders. it will require the possession or carry of a concealed handgun in a state be subject to that state's law regarding firearm safety training. including live fire exercise. currently at least 34 states require applicants to complete a firearm safety training course or present proof of the equivalent experience in order to obtain a concealed carry permit.
3:33 pm
19 states require live fire instruction to obtain a carry permit. however some states only require minimum training such as an internet-only instruction. even worse, however, are the states that do not require any firearm training to obtain a concealed carry permit. this bill would override state laws and require states to allow out-of-state residents to carry loaded, concealed weapons in public even if they have not met basic licensing or training requirements mandated for carrying in that state. this does not make any sense. by federally mandating recognition of all out-of-state concealed handgun permits, h.r. 822 would allow individuals who do not meet a state's live firearm training standards to
3:34 pm
carry concealed weapons within their borders and prohibits states from ever restricting carrying by those individuals. according to the violence policy center, since may, 2007, at least 385 people including law enforcement officers have been killed by individuals with concealed carry permits. none of these incidence involve self-defense. some of these incidence included mass shootings. the most recent occurring in july at a child's birthday party at a texas roller rink claiming the lives of 89 innocent victims. this illustrates why states should have the right to determine who's eligible to carry firearms within their borders. they know what is best for their communities. this bill is all about the national riffle association and its needs, not about the
3:35 pm
american people and putting them back to work. congress should not put its stamp of approval on this dangerous and misguided legislation. states that require a person to demonstrate that they know how to use a firearm or meet minimum training standards before obtaining a concealed carry permit should not be forced to allow out-of-state visitors to carry concealed weapons if they do not meet that state's concealed licensing requirements. especially if a state requires that individuals undergo live fire training to ensure they know how to properly operate a firearm. this is common sense, this is a commonsense amendment and it will keep americans safe. it simply would require the possession or carrying of a concealed handgun in a state be subject to that state's law
3:36 pm
regarding firearm safety training, including live fire exercises. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment and oppose the underlying bill. thank you and i'll reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. smith: mr. chairman, i oppose the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. smith: mr. chairman, this amendment allows states to prohibit nonresidents from carrying a concealed firearm if they did not take part in a firearm safety class that included a live fire exercise as part of the permitting process. this amendment would for the first time ever insert the federal government into the states' concealed permitting process. h.r. 822 by contrast protects each state's ability to set its own eligibility requirements for concealed carry permits. 37 states require some degree of firearms straining -- training. the gentleman from georgia's home state, interestingly, does not require any training and
3:37 pm
thus under this amendment its citizens would not be able to enjoy the federal grant of reciprocity provided by h.r. 822. the states carry out their training requirements in a number of ways. some states allow -- allow applicants to certify their proficiency through classroom training while other states recognize prior military and police service to meet these requirements. virginia, for example, provides eight different ways to meet the training requirements. this amendment is silent on a number of important issues. is prior millary or law enforcement sufficient to meet the live fire requirement? does an applicant need to go through this training each time they renew their permit or is it sufficient to have completed the course the first time they aplayed? these ambiguities give us more reason to oppose this amendment. we know that concealed carry laws do reduce crime. a study by -- a study found that when concealed carry laws went into effect, murders fell by
3:38 pm
over 7% and rapes and aggravated assaults fell by 5% and 7% respectfully. these find vgs been confirmed by -- these findings have been confirmed by 18 other studies but none have found that concealed carry increases crime. the benefit of concealed carry laws should not be measured only by the instances of self-defense, but also by the number of crimes that are prevented from occurring in the first place. i urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and i'll reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from georgia has one minute remaining. mr. johnson: thank you, mr. speaker. i agree wholeheartedly with my colleague from texas, chairman smith. this legislation does in fact insert the federal government into state licensing of firearms and it does it in a big way. it actually eviscerates the states' ability to regulate how
3:39 pm
or the qualifications for applicants to be able to receive a concealed carry permit. as i stated earlier, 34 states require applicants to complete a firearm safety training course. unfortunately georgia does not. but that does not mean that that is right. or proper. i believe that other states can certainly have a more conscientious approach to gun licensing and certainly states have had a right to do that and i want to preserve that right and so with that i'll yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: mr. chairman, i yield myself the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. smith: mr. chairman, i am glad that the gentleman from georgia agrees with me that this amendment does insert the
3:40 pm
federal government into the states' concealed carry permitting process. and i would simply say that that admission and the fact that that is the case is enough reason to oppose this amendment. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mr. smith: mr. chairman, i request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18 furd proceedings will be postponed. -- further proceedings will be postponed. for what purpose does -- oh, it is now in order to consider amendment number 7 printed in house report 112-283. for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee seek recognition? mr. cohen: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 7 printed in house report 112-283 offered pli about -- offered by mr. cohen of tennessee. the chair: the gentleman from tennessee, mr. cohen, and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from tennessee. mr. cohen: thank you, mr.
3:41 pm
chairman. before i came to congress i was a member of the tennessee senate for probably an in order ant. a years before i grad to this august body. it took me 24 years to matriculate. during those 24 years i worked on much important legislation to help the people of tennessee. and one of the things i helped the people of tennessee with is i wrote the right-to-carry bill in tennessee. the fact is this was a difficult bill to pass, it was a difficult bill to craft. there were people with different opinions of what should be in the bill. and we debated it and we want back and forth on what should be in it and took votes and certain things passed and certain failed and we came up with a bill that we thought was a good bill. i always felt that people who could take a gun and have enough vision and calmness of hand and hit a target at some pace, not have a criminal record and pass a written test of limited challenge should have a right to carry a gun. and in fact in tennessee very few people with the right to carry a gun have committed crimes and used their guns
3:42 pm
improperly. but the fact is we worked on this law and we had certain restrictions and one of the restrictions is you had to be 21 years of age. 21 years of age. same age that you have to have to buy a beer. or to drink. and 36 other states came to that same decision, that you should be 21 before you can get a permit to carry a gun. eight states have differed. eight states. alabama, delaware, indiana, iowa, maine, montana, new hampshire and south dakota. so you've got a southern state in there, you've got an eastern state, a couple of big ten's, a couple up in the big sky world and some of the east and they decided you only had to be 18, those eight states. this bill if passed would tell the citizens of those 37 states and the legislators in those 37 states that argued and determined that 21 was the right age that it would be the right age in your state for the people who were residents of your state
3:43 pm
but if somebody from one of those other eight states came into your state and was less than 21, they could carry a gun when your citizens couldn't. because their state decided 18 was sufficient, your laws make no difference. and you'd have teenagers carrying guns in states that had determined that it was not the appropriate age. 21's the right age to drink. and i'm not submitting it should be less at this time. but the fact is that the brain doesn't really develop to a certain extent until you're out of your teens and that's why much of the violent crime is committed by people age 18 to 20. they're only 5% of the population but 20% of the homicides and violent crime are committed from people age 18 to 20. if you pass this bill, you'll have people 18-20 going into states and having a right to carry a gun when the citizens of that state won't have it. that makes no sense. in 2007 the most recent year in which we have data, there were
3:44 pm
13,000 people who lost their lives in this country to accidents involving alcohol. but there were 31,000 people, over twice as many, who lost their lives because of gunfire. it doesn't make sense that we would not only trample on the laws of the different states and the works of the legislatures such as me who worked hard within the legislative bodies, within the give and take of senate and house, and conference committees to come up with what we thought was the policy of our state, to have that overrid bin the folks here in this united states house of representatives, the senate would be concurring to pass a bill to say, your laws make no difference and 18-year-olds and 20-year-olds from those states are going to be able to come into your state and carry a gun when your citizens won't be able to. it should be up to each of the states to decide that. and what we're getting to is the lowest common denominator which isn't right. the fact is, these laws should be left up to the states, the states right now can't have
3:45 pm
reciprocity agreements. tennessee didn't have one when we passed our bill in 1996 but in 2003 they got one. but the state of tennessee decided on its reciprocity, not the united states congress. and states have reciprocity agreements and they're all going to be overridden. some are more liberal than other, tennessee's the most liberal, but other states have got restrictions. they're all going to be set aside because of this. i would hope that the members who come from the 37 states that require your citizens to be 21 would not allow people under 21 to come into your state and have teenagers who are most likely to commit crimes with guns, to come in to your state with a concealed carry permit. mr. johnson: will the gentleman yield to me? mr. cohen: i yield to the distinguished gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: thank you. your experience in your state legislature and your legal experience really have impressed me that your amendment, we haven't talked
3:46 pm
about this today on the 822, is extremely important. i hope my colleagues will join with you and i'm going to, at the proper time, introduce my statement into the record. mr. cohen: thank you, sir. has my time expired? the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. cohen: i yield back the remaining of my time. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> i am opposed to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. gowdy: this prevents those between 18 and 21 from taking advantage of the repis -- reciprocity law.
3:47 pm
people of 18 can serve in the military. fewer than 10 states prohibit a person under 21 from carrying a concealed weapon, several have exceptions. several states recognize reciprocity even for those that permit those between 18 and 21. as many as 10 additional states recognize 18-year-old permit holders from other states. mr. chairman, america trusts our brave men and women under the age of 21 to volunteer for duty and defend our country. what this amendment says, however is you can carry a gun and defend this country overseas, but you can't carry a
3:48 pm
gun and defend yourself once you get back. this is not consistent with the second amendment, nor is it reflective of our views with respect to what 18-year-olds can and should be permitted to do. what is good enough to defend the foundations of this republic and us, i hasten to add, should be sufficient to defend -- mr. cohen: would the gentleman yield for a question? mr. gowdy: i'm happy to yield to the gentleman from tennessee. mr. cohen p.c. based on your argument, you would think that the states, that the 37 states' laws that limit gun owner permits to the age of 21 should be abolished. why does your legislation not go further and trample on states' rights and say you can only have a limitation of age 18 and say you cannot have a limitation of age 21? mr. gowdy: the only thing this
3:49 pm
debate today has done for me is tell me my colleagues on the're side of the aisle know about states' rights. why are we treating the second amendment like it is in the constitutional trash heap? mr. cohen: what i'm saying is that your belief is obviously that ea second amendment is an individual right so the states that have laws that should be 21 should be abolished. i have talked about states rights on medical tort liability, i've talked about states' rights on medical marijuana and found nobody on the other side. mr. gowdy: the gentleman is right, he has mentioned states' rights which puts him in a very lonely position on his side of the aisle. with that, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from tennessee. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it.
3:50 pm
pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from tennessee will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number eight printed in house report 112-283. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas rise? ms. jackson lee: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number eight printed in house report 112-283. offered by ms. jackson lee of texas. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 463, the gentlewoman from texas, ms. jackson lee, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from texas. ms. jackson lee: i thank you for your courtesies, mr. chairman. i'm delighted to have seen my good friend engage in a dialogue and colloquy with my friend from tennessee and maybe i might even get the same courtesy because this is a very important issue that also deals with constitutional questions and i'm back with my young man
3:51 pm
getting his immunization shot with a nurse looking over him because i want people to know that this is about family. it's about the fact of whether or not we make a statement on behalf of protecting law enforcement, protecting our families, and not fall upon the spear of the second amendment and the national rifle association. to my ranking member and dear friend, even the supercommittee is not without ghosts riding through. i understand they had a deal and then mr. norquist comes riding through. whenever we want to talk about getting together on the n.r.a., excuse me, getting together on guns and the send amendment, the n.r.a. comes riding through. we have got the n.r.a. and mr. norquist and can't get any bipartisanship because the ghosts keep riding through. my amendment is a very simple one. it speaks to, again, protecting the lives of our officers and what it says is, to the states,
3:52 pm
having the state have a designated entity, a designated agency that requires an individual coming into another state with a concealed carry permit must provide at least 24 hours advance notice to law enforcement agencies of their intention to carry or possess a concealed handgun in another state. states must retain their ability to know which individuals are allowed under this newly proposed bill to possess and carry a concealed weapon. my friend engaged in me a dialogue, the gentleman from south carolina, did not engage in a discussion but just imagine a trooper with a traffic stop on, say, for example, i-45 in the state of texas. it could be i-95 in maryland, at 3:00 a.m. the car has a colorado license plate. the driver supplies a colorado delivers license. the state trooper goes back to his car, he can instantly validate this person is from colorado, with respect to their license plate and license.
3:53 pm
upon rrning to the car, the trooper notices he has a condition sealed weapon on his hip. the driver hands over his conceal carry permit. the trooper has no way to validate that. if they had had to verify that, it would be accessible. i heard about the inlet process. only 12 states have allowed electronic access to their concealed carry database known as inlet. it does not respond in essence to the other 38 states. my friends, we are recklessly passing a bill that we think is sorely needed. it does not in any way have anything to do with jobs, it doesn't have anything to protect innocent children, it doesn't have anything to do with making sure law enforcement are safe. i'm adding an amendment to make it better. let's know when you're coming into our state, let's let our
3:54 pm
law enforcement know, let's provide safety to the american people. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina rise? mr. gowdy: i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. gowdy: this amendment is based on the premise that anyone who possesses a gun, including an american who legally purchases a gun is a criminal and must seek permission to exercise their constitutional rights. it would be nice if we could get those who harbor criminal intentions to call ahead and let us know their plans. it would be nice if they would let us know which store they're going to rob, which home they're going to invade, which car they're going to steal. that doesn't happen. to require law-abiding citizens to have to call ahead boggles
3:55 pm
the mind. do we call ahead and reserve our miranda reservations? do we need to tell them which road we'll be traveling on and who do they call and what do they tell them? do they describe the gun? tell them what caliber? what is law enforcement supposed to do with this information? does anyone think criminals ever call ahead and announce their intentions? and what happens if a person fails to provide notice, mr. chairman? what is the designated law enforcement agency expected to do with this information? maintain a database of all entering nonresidents, track their movement inside the state? should a nonresident with a concealed carry permit engage in criminal activity is the state liable for not preventing it? would a person who lives in maryland but works in virginia be required to call every day, mr. chairman? and what if it's an emergency trip, the birth of a grandchildren, a sickness in the family.
3:56 pm
do we just postpone our trip to meet the requirements of this amendment? or to we sacrifice our right to travel in self-defense because we didn't call quick enough? this is a practical nightmare, it's a constitutional abomination, i urge my colleagues to oppose it and i yield to my friend in law enforcement, the gentlelady from florida, mrs. adams. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. adams: reserving time. mr. gowdy: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentlewoman from texas has one and a half minutes remaining. ms. jackson lee: i'm so glad my dear friend rose to speak to the few phenomenon of apples and oranges. i am not coddling criminals. we know this is a distinctive bill that is not addressing the issue of criminals who come to do us harm. what we are suggesting that is that guns kill. we are suggesting that people use guns to kill.
3:57 pm
on that lonely dark road at 3:00 a.m., when that trooper adecent fis your delivers license but can't identify whether or not you have a legitimate concealed weapons permit, then we are asking for you to have help. we're asking for there to be 24-hour notification. i'm sure there will be the possibility of waivers, but don't tell me that a law enforcement entity, once knowing they they can go to the documentation that has the notification that someone is coming in from another state with a concealed weapon will not be useful. in fact, it will help. it will help the law enforcement officer tell this individual carrying legally on your way sir, on your way, ma'am, thank you. or in essence, we might catch someone with a concealed weapon and permit from another state but they're rushing across the state to get a wife or a husband that they're in a violent domestic abuse or
3:58 pm
domestic violence altercation. and so let me just say for all of the laffers, guns kill. -- laughers, guns kill. it is a shame we allow the ghost of the n.r.a. to ride into this place and smack down common sense. save the lives of children, because guns kill. save the lives of law enforcement officers who leave behind children, because guns kill, and don't fool around with the inlet process that doesn't even work. let's notify. let's notify. the chair: those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. ms. jackson lee: i request the yeas and nays. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from texas are postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number nine printed in house report 112-218. the clerk: amendment number
3:59 pm
nine printed in house report 112-283, offered by mr. cicilline of rhode island. the chair: the gentleman from rhode island, mr. cicilline, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. mr. cicilline: as a member of the bipartisan mayors board, i rides in opposition to the reciprocity act. it undermines the ability of states and localities to reduce gun violence by limiting the carrying of loaded, concealed weapons in their borders. this has nothing to do with honoring the second amendment but dishonors the rights of local communities an state governments to make decisions to protect the well being and safety of their citizens. this bill prevents states from responding to the unique needs of their communities and they determine the eligible criteria for carrying a loaded, concealed weapon, and instead forces them to accept standards set in other states.
4:00 pm
as a result, this bill strips away reasonable limitations, properly enacted by states, and imposes upon every state exempt illinois the least restrictive standard in the country for carrying a concealed, loaded gun. the implications of this bill are drastic. and a radical departure from well-settled practice and law that assigns primary responsibility for public safety to states and localities. in rhode island and in many states like it this bill would decimate the strong conceal carry framework developed by duly elected officials in the state. these officials enact the requirements that they believe most effectively prevent dangerous individuals from carrying a con sealed firearm within their borders. our heightened standards require applicants to be at least 21 years old, of good character, not an abuser of alcohol, to complete a firearm safety training course that includes
4:01 pm
live fire examination and to show good cause for needing a concealed carry permit. to further provide for our unique public safety needs, it also provides broad discretion to law enforcement officials in approving or denying a permit. as a result we're not -- rhode island ranks among the states with the lowest gun death rate, less than half the national average. thunderstorm bill, rhode island would be forced to recognize concealed carry permits from all states, regardless of how lax the other states' standards. this would lead my fellow rhode islanders subject to the whims of other states' concealed carry permits and actually prioritize the rights of out-of-state concealed carrier permit holders over the rights of our own rhode islanders. while rhode island requires safety training that includes the live fire examiner to carry, there are 10 states with no training whatsoever. while rhode island -- only 28 states have such a standard in
4:02 pm
place. the commonsense provisions of rhode island state law and the laws of similarly situated states prevent dangerous individuals from carrying loaded, concealed weapons. such protections would be completely undermined by this law. this bill is a clear and undeniable threat to public safety and will facilitate a new path that allows more and potentially dangerous individuals to carry concealed loaded gun witness our borders and against our will. this must not be allowed. because this bill presents such an indisputable threat to public safety in many states i've introduced this amendment which would require that at the very least prior to granting reciprocity in a state the attorney general, the head of the state police and the secretary of state jointly certify that the laws of a nonresident permanent holder state are substantially similar to its own. this would provide states an opportunity to preserve adherence to its core requirements, that restrict concealed carrying weapons but not allow them to deny permits from states that match its standards.
4:03 pm
it would add a minimum and -- it would at a minimum ensure that we respect the decisions made by state governments on this key public safety issue. the certification process will not be burdensome to states. some states including south dakota and nebraska already incorporate this type of process in determining eligibility for engaging in reciprocity agreements with other states. i urge my colleagues to support my amendment and protect the citizens of this country for the -- from the imposition of dangerously lax standards for the carrying of concealed weapons in direct contradiction to the decision of local and state governments charged with protecting the lives and safety of their citizens. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. smith: mr. chairman, i oppose the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. smith: mr. chairman, this is one of three amendments under consideration today that would allow the states to opt out of the nationwide concealed carry system that h.r. 822 seeks to establish. this undermines the bill's goal of creating national uniformity in our concealed carry laws.
4:04 pm
this amendment provides that every state attorney general, head of police and secretary of state must certify that the concealed carry eligibility laws of every other state are substantially similar to their own before the state can participate in this legislation's grant of reciprocity. this is obviously intended to be overly burdensome both to those with concealed carry permits and to the states themselves. it is also simply a way for state officials who do not support the second amendment right to bear arms to decide that their state will not recognize out-of-state concealed carry permits. the amendment also incorrectly assumes that there are critical differences between the states' eligibility requirements which is simply not the case. each state has a vested interest in making sure that those with a propensity toward violence are not granted a concealed carry permit. every state conducts a thorough background check so that unqualified individuals will not
4:05 pm
be able to carry a concealed firearm. the eligibility standards used by the states are more similar than not. the fact that there may be small differences among the states' eligibility laws should not allow a state to prohibit the exercise of second amendment rights within its boundaries. also, federal and state laws governing the purchase of a firearm must be complied with before a person can even apply for a concealed carry permit. in order to purchase a firearm or take advantage of the reciprocity extended by h.r. 822, a person convicted of a felony or domestic violence misdemeanor cannot legally purchase a firearm under federal law. a person must also be cleared through the federal bureau of investigation's national instant criminal background check system before they can purchase a firearm. data from the f.b.i.'s annual uniform crime report shows that right-to-carry states, those that widely allow concealed
4:06 pm
carry permits, have 22% lower total violent crime rates, 30% lower murder rates, 46% lower robbery rates and 12% lower aggravated assault rates as compared to the rest of the country. this amendment allows the current patchwork of concealed carry laws to continue and ignores the right to bear arms guaranteed by the second amendment. for those reasons i oppose this amendment and i'll reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman has 30 seconds remaining. mr. cicilline: just very quickly, the purpose is not to of course overly burden state governments but instead to respect the judgments and decisions they've made in weighing the equities and making determinations as to what is the right criteria, to give respect to the dual elected officials in -- duly elected officials in states who have made those judgments. it happens in south dakota and nebraska. it's not undulyy burdensome, it's really about respecting the people in state government and local governments who have the responsibility to protect the public health, safety and
4:07 pm
well-being of residents of states and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: mr. chairman, if you respect and support the full right of individuals to enjoy the rights under the second amendment to the constitution to bear arms, you will oppose this amendment. i'll yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question season the amendment offered by the gentleman from rhode island. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mr. smith: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from rhode island will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 10 printed in house report 112-283. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? mr. reichert: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 10 printed in house report 112-283 offered by mr. reichert of washington. the chair: the gentleman from washington, mr. reichert, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from washington.
4:08 pm
mr. reichert: thank you, mr. chairman. today we are here considering a national reciprocity law for concealed firearms, licenses and permits. i've always supported the second amendment rights for people to carry and keep firearms. i come at this from a little bit of a different perspective. i was a police officer for 33 years. worked the streets for six years in a patrol car, s.w.a.t. commander, hostage negotiator. i've had guns pointed at me. i've looked down the barrel of a shot gun. i've locked down the barrel of a rifle. i've heard the shots fly by. i've been at the other end of the gun, too. fortunately not had to fire at anyone. but in the protection of people in my community, i've experienced being at both ends of the firearm.
4:09 pm
so i understand and i get the concerns of cops, my brothers and sisters in law enforcement. what we want to make sure today is that those law enforcement officers across this country that protect us and are protecting us while we're in the capitol today are equipped and prepared to enforce this law. i have a concern. so my amendment would require that the g.a.o. look into whether or not law enforcement officers are able and have the ability to verify the validity of out-of-state concealed firearm permits and licenses. within one year of enactment, results of this study will be reported to the house judiciary committee and the senate judiciary committee. our state and local law enforcement across this country every day put their lives on the line. they put the badge on, they put their uniforms on, they walk out
4:10 pm
into the streets, they walk out to their patrol cars and they're putting their life on the line. it's a risk and responsibility that they gladly accept them. want to come home safely, of course, to their families. but they know the risks when they leave their home. they know the risks when they put on the badge. we owe it to them to ensure the underlying bill does not create any unintended consequences or additional safety concerns. right now it's unclear whether every cop in every jurisdiction across this nation can efficiently determine the validity of concealed firearms permits. each state decides how best to store that information and have access to its own concealed carry permit information, but maybe not that of other states. i only have so much time so i apologize, not yet. only 12 states are right now participating in a program that
4:11 pm
allows electronic access to joint concealed carry database. and the remaining 38 states, law enforcement officers are required to contact appropriate local officials over the phone or by email. this method is not timely enough and not effective. we must under how long it takes for law enforcement officers to determine whether or not a state concealed carry permit is legitimate or fraudulent. this is critical to both the safety of the cops in patrolling our neighborhoods and protecting the rights of law-abiding citizens. this g.a.o. study will help us better understand the impact of national reciprocity for concealed firearms on our nation's law enforcement and their ability to effectively enforce the law. we must pass this amendment to ensure that our cops have the adequate tools to enforce this law and i'd like to give the rest of my time -- reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. who claims time in opposition? mr. conyers: i do, mr. chairman.
4:12 pm
the chair: the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: i thank you very much and i merely wanted to ask our distinguished colleague from washington, if i understood correctly, that the g.a.o. would conduct a study about the ability of the state and local law enforcement to verify the validity of out-of-state concealment after this bill was passed, and i yield to the gentleman. mr. reichert: thank you for yielding. the question is whether or not this study is tied to the passage of the bill. no, the study is not tied to the passage of the bill. the study will begin upon pass and of the bill and it will last -- and the report must be filed before one year is up. mr. conyers: i see. could i ask the gentleman why we wouldn't conduct the study in
4:13 pm
front of the bill rather than after the bill? mr. reichert: well, a way that this amendment is presented, it's presented allowing the study to go on as law enforcement encounters this new law, we'll then know, of course, what challenges they face as they look to enforce the law. we won't know all of those things until the law is in place. mr. conyers: well, could i suggest that perhaps our responsibility as federal legislators might be to determine the impact of this proposal on public safety before we pass it, not years later after we passed it? would the gentleman concede that will a more appropriate path?
4:14 pm
mr. reichert: yes, sir, you're yielding once again? yes, sir, that's what my amendment is intended to do, is to gather that information so that we can appropriately revise the cu policies that may exist in police departments across the country and sheriffs offices across the country. mr. conyers: i thank the gentleman. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington has one minute remaining. mr. reichert: yes, sir. i'd like to yield the balance of my time to the distinguished chairman of the judiciary. the chair: the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: mr. chairman, i want to thank the gentleman from washington, a former sheriff himself, for yielding me time. and i appreciate his offering this amendment which requests a study by the government accountable office on the ability of state and local law enforcement agencies to verify the validity of nonresident concealed carry permits. the study requested by the gentleman's amendment will provide additional assurance in
4:15 pm
nonresident permit information can be verified by law enforcement officers across the country. so i urge my colleagues to support his amendment and i'll yield back as well. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question occurs on the amendment offered by the gentleman from washington. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, proceedings will now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were postponed. amendment number one, by mr. wood yawl of new york, amendment number two, by mrs. mccarthy of new york, amendment number three by ms. jackson lee of texas, amendment number six
4:16 pm
by mr. cohen of tennessee, amendment number eight by ms. jackson lee of texas. the unfinished business is the question for the -- request for the recorded vote by the gentleman from georgia, mr. wood yawl, on which the further proceed wrgs postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. cloim amendment number one, printed in house report 112- 238, offered by mr. wood yawl of georgia. the chair: this will be a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
4:17 pm
4:18 pm
4:19 pm
4:20 pm
4:21 pm
4:22 pm
4:23 pm
4:24 pm
4:25 pm
4:26 pm
4:27 pm
4:28 pm
4:29 pm
4:30 pm
4:31 pm
4:32 pm
4:33 pm
4:34 pm
4:35 pm
4:36 pm
4:37 pm
4:38 pm
4:39 pm
4:40 pm
4:41 pm
4:42 pm
4:43 pm
the chair: on this vote the yeas are 140, the nays are 280. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 2 printed in house report 112-283 by the gentlewoman from new york, mrs. mccarthy, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2 printed in house report 112-283
4:44 pm
offered by mrs. mccarthy of new york. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
4:45 pm
4:46 pm
4:47 pm
the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 147, the nays are 274. this amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number three printed in house report 112-283 by the gentleman from florida, mr. hastings on which further
4:48 pm
proceedings were postponed, on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number three printed in house report 112-283, offered by mr. hastings of florida. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in forth of a request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. 5 sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.] 6
4:49 pm
4:50 pm
4:51 pm
4:52 pm
the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 148, the nays will 274. the chair: on this vote, the
4:53 pm
yeas are 174, the nays are 277, the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number four, prinned in house report 112-283, by ms. jackson lee of texas. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number four printed in house report 112-283, offered by ms. jackson lee of texas. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of a recorded vote shall rise and be counted. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
4:54 pm
4:55 pm
4:56 pm
the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 139, the nays are 284, the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number six printed in house report 112-283, by the gentleman from georgia, mr. johnson, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote chesm clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number six printed if house report 112-283, offered by mr. johnson of georgia. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house
4:57 pm
proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
4:58 pm
4:59 pm
the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 143, the nays --

39 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on